CENTRAL AMERICA 

U.S. Agencies 

Considered Various 

Factors in Funding 

Security Activities, but 

Need to Assess 

Progress in Achieving 

Interagency 

Objectives

Report to the Caucus on

International Narcotics Control,

U.S. Senate

September 2013

GAO-13-771

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-771, a report to the 

Caucus on International Narcotics Control, 

U.S. Senate

September 2013

CENTRAL AMERICA

U.S. Agencies Considered Various Factors in 

Funding Security Activities, but Need to Assess 

Progress in Achieving Interagency Objectives

Why GAO Did This Study

Drug trafficking organizations and

gangs have expanded in Central 

America, threatening the security of 

these countries and the United States. 

Since 2008, the U.S. government has 

helped Central America and Mexico

respond to these threats and in 2010 

established CARSI solely to assist

Central America. CARSI’s goals are to 

create safe streets, disrupt criminals 

and contraband, support capable 

governments, and increase state 

presence and cooperation among 

CARSI partners. GAO reported on 

CARSI funding in January 2013 and

was asked to further review CARSI 

and related activities in Central 

America.

This report (1) provides an updated 

assessment of U.S. agencies’ funding

and activities that support CARSI 

goals; (2) examines whether U.S. 

agencies took steps to consider 

partner country needs, absorptive 

capacities, and U.S. and non-U.S. 

investments when selecting CARSI 

activities; and (3) examines information 

on the extent to which U.S. agencies 

reported CARSI results and evaluated 

CARSI activities. GAO analyzed 

CARSI and complementary nonCARSI funding; reviewed documents 

on CARSI activities, partner country 

needs, and CARSI results; interviewed 

U.S. agency officials about CARSI and 

related activities; and observed CARSI 

activities in three countries.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that State and 

USAID work with other agencies to 

assess progress in achieving the 

objectives of the interagency strategy

for Central America. State and USAID 

concurred with the recommendation.

What GAO Found

Since fiscal year 2008, U.S. agencies allocated over $1.2 billion in funding for

Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) activities and non-CARSI 

funding that supports CARSI goals. As of June 1, 2013, the Department of State

(State) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

obligated at least $463 million of the close to $495 million in allocated funding for 

CARSI activities, and disbursed at least $189 million to provide partner countries 

with equipment, technical assistance, and training to improve interdiction and 

disrupt criminal networks. Moreover, as of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies 

estimated that they had allocated approximately $708 million in non-CARSI 

funding that supports CARSI goals, but data on disbursements were not readily 

available. U.S. agencies, including State, the Department of Defense (DOD), and 

the Department of Justice, use this funding to provide equipment, technical

assistance, and training, as well as infrastructure and investigation assistance to 

partner countries. For example, DOD allocated $25 million in funding to help 

Guatemala establish an interagency border unit to combat drug trafficking.

State and USAID took a variety of steps—using assessment reports, outreach 

meetings with host governments and other donors, and interagency meetings—

to help identify and consider partner countries’ needs, absorptive capacities, and 

related U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting CARSI activities. For 

example, State used an assessment report on crime scene investigation and 

forensic programs and capacities of six partner countries to inform decisions on 

selecting CARSI activities. In addition, USAID officials used assessment reports 

to help identify and consider partner country juvenile justice and community 

policing needs and absorptive capacities; these assessment reports included 

specific recommendations for designing and selecting juvenile justice and 

community policing projects in partner countries. Also, in one partner country,

embassy officials used donor outreach meetings to identify another donor's 

significant investment in police intelligence in the partner country; the embassy 

consequently reduced funding for CARSI activities in that area.

While U.S. agencies have reported on some CARSI results, they have not 

assessed progress in meeting interagency objectives for Central America. State 

and USAID have reported some CARSI results through various mechanisms at 

the initiative, country, and project levels. For example, one embassy reported 

that its CARSI-supported anti-gang education project had expanded nationwide 

and taught over 3,000 children over 3 years of the program. However, U.S. 

agencies have not assessed their performance using the metrics outlined in a 

2012 interagency strategy for Central America that were designed to measure 

the results of CARSI and related non-CARSI activities. GAO recognizes that 

collecting performance data may be challenging and that the metrics could 

require some adjustments. Nevertheless, assessing progress toward achieving 

the strategy’s objectives could help guide U.S. agencies’ decisions about their 

activities and identify areas for improvement. In addition to ongoing assessments 

of progress, GAO has concluded in prior work that evaluations are important to 

obtain more in-depth information on programs’ performance and context. USAID 

is conducting an evaluation of its CARSI crime prevention programming to be 

completed in 2014. State officials said that they are planning to conduct an 

evaluation of some of their CARSI activities beginning in fiscal year 2014.

View GAO-13-771. For more information, 

contact Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., at (202) 

512-7331 or JohnsonCM@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-771 Central America

Letter 1

Background 5

U.S. Agencies Have Allocated Over $1.2 Billion in CARSI and NonCARSI Funds to Support Various Security Activities in Central 

America 9

State and USAID Took Steps to Consider Partner Country Needs, 

Absorptive Capacities, and Investments When Selecting CARSI 

Activities 21

U.S. Agencies Reported on Some CARSI Results, but Not on 

Progress toward Interagency Objectives, and Efforts Are Under 

Way to Evaluate CARSI Activities 25

Conclusions 34

Recommendation for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 36

Appendix II Status of Central America Regional Security Initiative Funds 43

Appendix III Status of Central America Regional Security Initiative Foreign 

Military Financing Account Funds 54

Appendix IV Comments from the U.S. Agency for International 

Development 56

Appendix V Comments from the Department of State 58

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-771 Central America

Tables

Table 1: Total U.S. Funds Allocated, Obligated, and Disbursed to 

Support Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) Activities, by Country, as of June 1, 2013 11

Table 2: Examples of Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) Funded Activities in the Seven Partner Countries 15

Table 3: Estimated U.S. Non-Central America Regional Security 

Initiative (CARSI) Funds Allocated That Support CARSI 

Goals, by Country, as of March 31, 2013 17

Table 4: Estimated U.S. Non-Central America Regional Security 

Initiative (CARSI) Funds Allocated That Support CARSI 

Goals, by Agency, as of March 31, 2013 18

Table 5: GAO-Recommended Steps for Evaluation Design 33

Table 6: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

(INCLE) Funding Allocated and Disbursed, by Fiscal Year 

Appropriated, toward Central America Regional Security 

Initiative (CARSI) Activities in Partner Countries, as of 

June 1, 2013 44

Table 7: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement 

(INCLE) Funding, by Fiscal Year Disbursed, to Support 

Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) 

Activities, as of June 1, 2013 46

Table 8: Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding Allocated and 

Disbursed, by Fiscal Year Appropriated, by the United 

States Agency for International Development (USAID) 

toward Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) Activities in Partner Countries, as of June 1, 2013 47

Table 9: United States Agency for International Development 

(USAID) Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding, by 

Fiscal Year Disbursed, to Support Central America 

Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities, as of June 

1, 2013 49

Table 10: Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding Allocated and 

Disbursed, by Fiscal Year Appropriated, by State toward 

Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) 

Activities in Partner Countries, as of June 1, 2013 50

Table 11: State Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding, by Fiscal 

Year Disbursed, to Support Central America Regional 

Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities, as of June 1, 2013 51

Table 12: Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related 

Programs (NADR) Funding Allocated and Disbursed, by 

Fiscal Year Appropriated, toward Central America 
Page iii GAO-13-771 Central America

Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in Partner 

Countries, as of June 1, 2013 52

Table 13: Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related 

Programs (NADR) Funding, by Fiscal Year Disbursed, to 

Support Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) Activities, as of June 1, 2013 53

Table 14: Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) 

Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Funding Allocated and 

Committed, by Fiscal Year Appropriated, toward Central 

America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in 

Partner Countries, as of June 1, 2013 54

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Central America Regional Security Initiative 

Partner Countries and Neighboring Countries 6

Figure 2: Examples of Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) Funded Equipment Provided to the Belize Police 

Department 14

Figure 3: Non-Central America Regional Security Initiative Funding 

(CARSI) Funding for Belize Coast Guard Joint Operation 

Center and CARSI-Funded Equipment 20
Page iv GAO-13-771 Central America

Abbreviations

CARSI Central America Regional Security Initiative

CBP Customs and Border Protection

CT Counterterrorism 

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

DSCA Defense Security Cooperation Agency

DFAS Defense Financing and Accounting Service

ESF Economic Support Fund

EXBS Export Control and Related Border Security

FMF Foreign Military Financing

IAWG Central America Interagency Working Group

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

INCLE International Narcotics Control and Law 

Enforcement 

INL Bureau of International Narcotics and Law 

Enforcement Affairs

NADR Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, 

and Related Programs

State Department of State

Treasury Department of the Treasury

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WHA Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-771 Central America

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 25, 2013

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Chairman

The Honorable Charles Grassley

Co-Chairman

Caucus on International Narcotics Control

United States Senate

In recent years, the security situation in Central America has deteriorated 

as drug trafficking organizations, gangs, and other criminal groups have 

expanded their activities, taking advantage of weak government 

institutions and poor social conditions. These groups have reportedly 

been able to operate with virtual impunity and the situation threatens both 

the stability and security of Central American countries, as well as the 

national security of the United States, as drugs, violence, and crime 

spread across borders. The U.S. government established the Mérida 

Initiative in 2008 to help Mexico and Central American countries respond 

to these threats. In 2010, the U.S. government established a new 

initiative, solely for Central American countries, called the Central 

America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI).1

The Department of State (State) and the United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID) both implement CARSI activities 

using an integrated approach to support judicial reform, community 

policing, and corrections efforts, as well as crime prevention, law 

enforcement, and counternarcotics programs. Given the range of 

challenges facing partner countries and limited U.S. resources, State and 

USAID pursue a mix of activities in an effort to maximize results and best 

achieve CARSI goals. U.S. agencies such as the Departments of 

Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), Justice (DOJ), and the 

Treasury (Treasury)—along with State and USAID—have also used nonCARSI funding to support complementary activities and programs in 

CARSI funds U.S. 

assistance activities in Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama (hereafter referred to as “partner 

countries”).

 1

For the purposes of this review, the term CARSI will be used to refer to activities in 

Central America under the earlier Mérida Initiative, as well as under the more recent 

CARSI. 
Page 2 GAO-13-771 Central America

Central America. In 2012, the National Security Staff approved an 

interagency citizen security strategy for Central America designed to help 

coordinate and focus the U.S. government’s CARSI and complementary 

non-CARSI activities in the region.

You asked us to review several issues related to CARSI. In January 

2013, we issued a report with information on the status of funding for 

CARSI activities, including the amount that was disbursed to support 

partner countries during fiscal years 2008 through 2011, and information 

on amounts allocated, obligated, and disbursed by year of appropriation.2

This report (1) provides an updated assessment of U.S. agencies’ funding 

and activities that support CARSI goals; (2) examines whether U.S. 

agencies took steps to consider partner country needs, absorptive 

capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments when selecting 

activities to fund under CARSI; and (3) examines information on the 

extent to which U.S. agencies reported CARSI results and evaluated 

CARSI activities.3

To examine CARSI funding and activities, we collected data from State 

and USAID on funds allocated, obligated, and disbursed for CARSI 

activities from fiscal year 2008 through June 1, 2013, and reviewed 

documentation on CARSI-funded activities. As agencies may use slightly 

different funding terms, we provided them with definitions from GAO’s A 

Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process and worked with 

agencies to obtain data that met these definitions, to the extent possible.4

 2

GAO, Status of Funding for the Central America Regional Security Initiative, 

In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials

reported an amount of almost $10.6 million in additional International 

GAO-13-295R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2013). While reviewing a draft of this report, 

State identified additional funds that it had allocated to CARSI in fiscal year 2010. We 

have incorporated these new data in this report; therefore, the CARSI funding information 

in our January 2013 report is superseded by the information in this report. 

3

For the purposes of this report, we define partner country needs as gaps in a partner 

country’s citizen security that could be addressed with the help of U.S. assistance. 

Absorptive capacity is the ability of the partner country to receive and effectively utilize 

U.S. assistance. Related U.S. investments are non-CARSI investments that promote 

citizen security from any U.S. agency. Related non-U.S. investments are investments that 

promote citizen security from other donor governments, international organizations, and 

from the partner country itself.

4

GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005).
Page 3 GAO-13-771 Central America

Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funding that was 

allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been 

previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not 

provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount

because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial 

systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country. 

According to State officials, that is why these funds were not previously 

reported to GAO. We confirmed with State officials that the funds had 

been applied to CARSI activities and documented the programs toward 

which the funds had been applied. Although State officials were not able 

to track the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included 

this amount in the total allocated for CARSI activities. We made note of

this discrepancy in presenting these data in the report. To examine nonCARSI funding and activities that support CARSI goals, we collected data 

and reviewed documentation on non-CARSI activities from State and 

USAID, as well as DOD, DOJ, DHS, and Treasury, for fiscal year 2008 

through the first half of fiscal year 2013. To assess the reliability of the 

CARSI and non-CARSI data provided, we requested and reviewed 

information from agency officials regarding the underlying financial data 

systems and the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data 

and ensure their accuracy and reliability. We found the data sufficiently 

reliable for our purposes. At the time of reporting, the most recent data 

available on funding for CARSI were as of June 1, 2013, and the most 

recent non-CARSI funding data available were as of March 31, 2013. 

However, we found no change in the total CARSI allocations between 

March 31, 2013, and June 1, 2013. Thus, it is possible to compare CARSI 

and non-CARSI funding allocations.

To examine steps U.S. agencies used to help identify and consider key 

factors when selecting activities to fund under CARSI, we reviewed 

documentation from State and USAID, including U.S. agency 

assessments of partner countries, as well as written statements provided 

to us from embassies in partner countries and from State and USAID on 

the steps they utilized. To examine the extent to which U.S. agencies 

reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities, we reviewed 

State, USAID, and other agencies’ documentation on CARSI activities 

and the results of these activities. We also compared U.S. agencies’

actions to assess and report their progress toward achieving the 

objectives in the interagency strategy for Central America against key 

considerations that we identified in 2012 for implementing interagency 
Page 4 GAO-13-771 Central America

collaboration mechanisms.5 In our previous work, we found that one key 

feature in the successful implementation of such mechanisms is the 

development of a system for monitoring and reporting on results. In 

addition, we compared agencies’ activities against leading practices GAO 

identified in 1996 for performance management of federal programs.6

To support work on all three objectives, we conducted interviews with 

State, USAID, DOD, DOJ (and its components), DHS (and its 

components), and Treasury officials in Washington, D.C. In addition, we 

visited three partner countries—Belize, Guatemala, and Panama. We 

selected these three countries as a sample considering the following 

elements—the scope of the citizen security problem; the amount of 

funding for CARSI activities received from fiscal year 2008 to 2012; the 

range of CARSI activities undertaken; the extent of non-CARSI U.S. 

government activities that support CARSI objectives; and the extent of 

host government or other donor citizen security efforts in these countries. 

In these three countries, we met with U.S. agency officials as well as host 

government, international organization, and other donor government 

officials. We also visited CARSI and non-CARSI activity locations during 

these visits. For additional details about our scope and methodology, see 

appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 5

We developed this list of considerations through a review of relevant literature on 

collaboration mechanisms, interviews with experts on collaboration, and a review of 

findings from a number of our previous reports on collaboration in the federal government.

See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

6

We developed this list of practices through the study of the experiences of leading public 

sector organizations, a review of management studies of federal agencies, and interviews 

with federal executives and other experts on performance management. See GAO, 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
Page 5 GAO-13-771 Central America

The security situation in Central America has continued to deteriorate in 

recent years as Mexican drug trafficking organizations, transnational 

gangs, and other criminal groups have expanded their activities, 

contributing to escalating levels of crime and violence. Violence is 

particularly high in the “northern triangle” countries of El Salvador, 

Guatemala, and Honduras, with homicide rates among the highest in the 

world. Efforts to counter illicit trafficking in Colombia and Mexico created 

an environment that became increasingly inhospitable to drug trafficking 

organizations, forcing criminal groups to displace operations into Central 

America where they could exploit institutional weaknesses. Recognizing 

this situation, the United States has sought to develop collaborative 

security partnerships with Central American countries. As part of this 

effort, in 2010 the United States split off the Central America portion of 

the Mérida Initiative and established a new initiative named CARSI.7

 7

In 2008, the United States established the Mérida Initiative, a multiyear assistance 

package to Mexico and Central America, to help address increasing violence and criminal 

activity, especially from drug-trafficking and other criminal organizations.

According to State, CARSI is designed as a collaborative partnership 

between the United States and Central American partner countries. Its 

focus is on improving citizen security within the region, taking a broad 

approach to the issues of security beyond traditional counternarcotics

activities. Figure 1 shows the CARSI partner countries in Central 

America.

Background
Page 6 GAO-13-771 Central America

Figure 1: Map of Central America Regional Security Initiative Partner Countries and 

Neighboring Countries

According to State, CARSI’s five primary goals are to

• create safe streets for citizens in the region;

• disrupt the movement of criminals and contraband to, within, and 

between the nations of Central America;

• support the development of strong, capable, and accountable Central 

American governments;

• re-establish effective state presence and security in communities at 

risk; and

• foster enhanced levels of security coordination and cooperation 

among nations in the region.

Funding for CARSI activities has come from a combination of four U.S. 

foreign assistance accounts—the INCLE account; the Economic Support 

Fund (ESF) account; the Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and 

Related Programs (NADR) account; and the Foreign Military Financing 

(FMF) account. General descriptions of how these accounts are used 

globally are provided below.
Page 7 GAO-13-771 Central America

Generally,

• the INCLE account is used to provide assistance to foreign countries 

and international organizations to assist them in developing and 

implementing policies and programs that maintain the rule of law and 

strengthen institutional law enforcement and judicial capabilities, 

including countering drug flows and combating transnational crime;

• the ESF account is used to assist foreign countries in meeting their 

political, economic, and security needs by funding a range of 

activities, including those designed to counter terrorism and extremist 

ideology, increase the role of the private sector in the economy, 

develop effective legal systems, build transparent and accountable 

governance, and empower citizens;

• the NADR account is used to fund contributions to certain 

organizations supporting nonproliferation, and provides assistance to 

foreign countries for nonproliferation, demining, antiterrorism, export 

control assistance, and other related activities; and

• the FMF account is used to provide grants to foreign governments 

and international organizations for the acquisition of U.S. defense 

equipment, services, and training to enhance the capacity of foreign 

security forces.8

State manages the INCLE, NADR, and FMF accounts, and shares 

responsibility with USAID to manage and administer the ESF account. 

Within State, the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs (INL) administers the INCLE account. The Bureau of PoliticalMilitary Affairs administers the FMF account, while DOD oversees the 

actual procurement and transfer of goods and services purchased with 

these funds. State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation 

and its Bureau of Counterterrorism administer their NADR subaccounts. 

State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs administers a portion of 

ESF. However, USAID oversees the implementation of most CARSI 

programs funded from ESF. State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs also previously administered a onetime use of ESF funds for 

CARSI activities. 

 8

Pursuant to appropriations for FMF, funding for FMF grants is obligated upon 

apportionment. According to State officials, though FMF may be used to provide loans as 

well as grants, it is rarely used in this manner. 
Page 8 GAO-13-771 Central America

State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs (WHA) has the lead within 

State for integrating CARSI activities with State’s broader policy of 

promoting citizen security in Central America. State’s primary funding 

source for CARSI activities is the INCLE account and the ESF account is 

USAID’s primary funding source for CARSI activities. In addition to State 

and USAID, a number of other U.S. agencies use non-CARSI funding to 

implement activities in Central America that address various aspects of 

promoting citizen security that complement CARSI activities—including 

improving law enforcement and the criminal justice system, promoting 

rule of law and human rights, enhancing customs and border control, and 

encouraging economic and social development. DOD, DOJ, DHS, and 

Treasury are the key agencies involved in these non-CARSI funded 

activities.
Page 9 GAO-13-771 Central America

Since fiscal year 2008, U.S. agencies have allocated more than $1.2 

billion in funding for CARSI activities and non-CARSI funding that 

supports CARSI goals.9 As of June 1, 2013, State and USAID had 

allocated close to $495 million10 and disbursed at least $189 million in 

funding for CARSI activities to provide partner countries with equipment, 

technical assistance, and training to improve interdiction and disrupt 

criminal networks.11

 9

For the purposes of this report, an allocation is a further subdivision by an agency of an 

apportionment, which is the method by which the Office of Management and Budget 

distributes amounts available for obligation. See 

As of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies (State, USAID, 

DOD, DOJ, and DHS) estimated that they had also allocated 

approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supports CARSI 

goals. U.S. agencies, including State, DOD, and DOJ, have used nonCARSI funding to provide additional security-related equipment, technical 

assistance, and training, as well as infrastructure and investigation 

assistance to the region. Data on disbursements of non-CARSI funding 

were not readily available for some agencies because of the complexity 

and challenges associated with how these agencies track their 

disbursement data. At the time of reporting, the most recent data 

available on funding for CARSI were as of June 1, 2013 and the most 

recent non-CARSI funding data available were as of March 31, 2013. 

However, we found no change in the total CARSI allocations between 

March 31, 2013 and June 1, 2013. Thus, it is possible to compare CARSI 

and non-CARSI funding allocations.

GAO-05-734SP.

10State and USAID allocated close to $495 million for CARSI activities from the $496.5 

million in appropriated funds designated for Central America from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal 

year 2012. According to State officials, in fiscal year 2009, $17 million in appropriated 

FMF funds was allocated for Central America, but State reprogrammed approximately $2 

million due to policy restrictions related to a coup in Honduras and withheld funds from 

Nicaragua because certain reporting requirements were not met. State officials note that 

the approximately $2 million in reprogrammed funds account for the difference between 

the amount of appropriated funds that State reports to Congress as being designated for 

Central America and the total amount identified as allocated for CARSI activities.

11After reviewing a draft of this report, State officials reported an amount of almost $10.6 

million in INCLE funding that was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that 

had not been previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not 

provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount because these 

INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial systems do not allow them to 

track such funds by region or country. According to State officials, that is why these funds 

were not previously reported to GAO. Although State officials were not able to account for 

the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this amount in the total of 

the close to $495 million allocated for CARSI activities.

U.S. Agencies Have 

Allocated Over $1.2 

Billion in CARSI and 

Non-CARSI Funds to 

Support Various 

Security Activities in 

Central America
Page 10 GAO-13-771 Central America

As of June 1, 2013, State and USAID had allocated close to $495 million 

in funding for CARSI activities; the same amount had been allocated as of 

March 31, 2013, the time frame we use later to report on non-CARSI 

funding allocations. State and USAID have obligated at least $463 million 

of the close to $495 million allocated, and have disbursed at least $189 

million of the allocated CARSI funds from the INCLE, ESF, and NADR 

accounts for activities in partner countries.12

Of the seven partner countries, the largest amounts of CARSI funds were 

allocated to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In addition, 17

percent of the total allocations was for regional activities; that is, regionwide activities in Central America that are not tied to an activity in a 

specific country. Table 1 provides a breakdown of allocated, obligated, 

and disbursed funds for CARSI activities by country. To demonstrate how 

funding for CARSI activities has been allocated, obligated, and disbursed 

by year of appropriation, we are providing this information by account and 

by country in appendix II. In addition, we present data on how funding for 

CARSI activities under FMF have been allocated and committed by year 

of appropriation in appendix III.

State and USAID disbursed 

funds to support activities in partner countries that improve law 

enforcement and maritime interdiction capabilities, support capacity 

building and training activities, prevent crime and violence, and deter and 

detect border criminal activity. After reviewing a draft of this report, State 

officials reported an amount of almost $10.6 million in INCLE funding that 

was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been 

previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could not 

provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount

because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial 

systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country. 

According to State officials, this is why these funds were not previously 

reported to GAO. Although State officials were not able to track the 

obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this amount 

in the total of the close to $495 million allocated for CARSI activities.

 12Because State was unable to provide a breakout of almost $10.6 million in INCLE funds, 

total allocations of $484 million, which excludes this amount, were used to make 

comparisons against obligations and disbursements.

State and USAID Have 

Obligated the Majority of 

the Close to $495 Million 

Allocated for CARSI since 

Fiscal Year 2008
Page 11 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 1: Total U.S. Funds Allocated, Obligated, and Disbursed to Support Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) 

Activities, by Country, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country Allocated

Unobligated 

balance

Unliquidated 

obligations Disbursed

Guatemala 111,190 1,005 65,142 43,669

Regional 86,484 a 16,264 29,431 40,789

Honduras 85,531 150 58,589 25,276

El Salvador 80,846 2 40,941 31,029

Panama 51,601 949 20,517 25,565

Costa Rica 34,110 1,004 16,730 11,487

Belize 19,397 530 9,736 5,954

Nicaragua 14,817 1,367 6,287 5,629

INCLE Centrally Managed Account 10,588 b N/A N/A N/A

CARSI total 494,564 c 21,271 247,373 189,398

Source: GAO analysis of State and USAID data.

Notes: Data are for fiscal year 2008 to June 1, 2013. Amounts have been rounded to the nearest 

thousand and therefore may not sum to totals. The allocation amounts did not change from March 31, 

2013, to June 1, 2013. According to State and USAID officials, some of the unobligated balances 

from earlier fiscal years are no longer available for obligation. For the Foreign Military Financing 

(FMF) account, only allocations and unobligated balances are included; FMF unliquidated obligations 

and disbursements are not included because FMF funds are budgeted and tracked differently than 

funds from the other CARSI accounts and are not tracked consistent with our presentation of financial 

data.

a

Regional amounts include funds from the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement; 

Economic Support Fund (State and USAID); and Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and 

Related Programs accounts for “regional activities.”

b

State provided allocated amounts for CARSI activities from this account but was unable to provide 

information on the obligation or disbursement of these funds. According to State officials, these 

INCLE funds are centrally managed and are not tracked by region or country. Given that State was 

unable to provide a breakout of this almost $10.6 million in funds, total allocations of $484 million, 

which excludes this amount, were used to make comparisons against obligations and disbursements. 

N/A indicates that these data are not available. 

c

The total allocated amount does not equal the total combined sum of unobligated balances, 

unliquidated obligations, and disbursed because FMF funding is not included in unliquidated 

obligations and disbursements, and INCLE Centrally Management Account funding is not included in 

unobligated balance, unliquidated obligations, and disbursements.

Since we initially reported on CARSI in January 2013, the amount of 

funding for CARSI activities disbursed has increased from at least $75 

million as of September 30, 2011, to at least $189 million as of June 1, 
Page 12 GAO-13-771 Central America

2013 from the INCLE, ESF, and NADR accounts.

13 According to State 

officials, disbursements increased because State took steps to alleviate 

delays associated with program administration in the implementation of 

CARSI (particularly in the early years), including an insufficient number of 

staff at embassies in partner countries to manage CARSI activities.14 For 

example, in June 2013, the Assistant Secretary of State for INL reported 

in a congressional hearing that INL had increased staff positions in 

embassies in CARSI partner countries as INCLE funding represented 

about 64 percent of total CARSI allocations in these countries.15

Currently, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama have INL 

Sections (formerly known as Narcotics Affairs Sections); and Belize, 

Costa Rica, and Nicaragua have Narcotics Affairs Offices, according to 

State officials.

16 State and USAID have 5 years from the time the period 

of availability for obligation has expired to disburse funds. 

State and USAID disbursed funds to support various activities in partner 

countries that improve law enforcement and maritime interdiction 

capabilities, support capacity building and training activities, prevent 

crime and violence, and deter and detect border criminal activity. 

However, there is a slight difference in emphasis between State and 

USAID in their CARSI-funded activities. State’s efforts focus on capacity 

building of partner countries, while USAID’s efforts focus on establishing 

prevention programs for at-risk youth in partner countries.

 13GAO, International Affairs: Status of Funding for the Central America Regional Security 

Initiative, GAO-13-295R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2013).

14GAO, Mérida Initiative: The United States Has Provided Counternarcotics and Anticrime 

Support but Needs Better Performance Measures, GAO-10-837 (Washington, D.C.: July 

21, 2010). We previously found that U.S. agencies were working on various 

implementation challenges that contributed to implementation delays of Mérida-Central 

America. The cited delays included insufficient staff to administer programs, negotiations 

on interagency and bilateral agreements, procurement processes, changes in 

government, and funding availability.

15U.S. Congress, House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Western 

Hemisphere, Regional Security Cooperation: Ambassador William R. Brownfield, 

Assistant Secretary of State for INL, An Examination of the Central America Regional 

Security Initiative and the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (Washington, D.C.: June 19, 

2013).

16Sections are fully funded with INL funds; Narcotics Affairs Offices, which are part of an 

embassy’s Political Section, are partially funded with INL funds. 

State and USAID Fund 

Law Enforcement and 

Crime Prevention 

Activities in Partner 

Countries
Page 13 GAO-13-771 Central America

In general, State uses INCLE, ESF, FMF, and NADR funds to support 

activities such as

• strengthening the abilities of Central American law enforcement 

institutions to fight crime, violence, and trafficking in drugs and 

firearms;

• implementing high-impact, sustainable activities that focus on at-risk 

youth (such as job training and after school activities) and 

communities that are experiencing high levels of crime and violence; 

• preventing the proliferation of advanced conventional weapons by 

helping to build effective national export control systems in countries 

that process, produce, or supply strategic items, as well as in 

countries through which such items are most likely to transit; and

• building and improving partner nation security force capacity to protect 

maritime borders and land territory against transnational threats such 

as illicit narcotics trafficking. 

USAID uses ESF funds for CARSI activities in the following areas:

• services for at-risk youth, focusing on vocational training, job 

placement, after-school activities, community centers, and leadership 

development;

• municipal crime prevention activities, including community outreach 

for local police and support for crime observatories that coordinate 

data sharing to track crime statistics; and

• national and regional political reform activities to strengthen rule of 

law institutions and that reflect partner countries’ commitments to 

reduce violence while creating the environment needed to 

institutionalize and sustain USAID efforts under CARSI.

Across the region, State and USAID use various CARSI-funded activities 

to carry out CARSI goals in each of the seven partner countries. Funding 

for CARSI activities provides partner countries with communication, 

border inspection, and security force equipment such as radios, 

computers, X-ray cargo scanners, narcotics identification kits, ballistic 

vests, and night-vision goggles. Funding for CARSI activities also 

provides related maintenance for this equipment. Figure 2 below shows 

examples of crime investigation forensic equipment and vehicles provided 

with funding for CARSI activities to the Belize Police Department.
Page 14 GAO-13-771 Central America

Figure 2: Examples of Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Funded Equipment Provided to the Belize Police 

Department

In addition, funding for CARSI activities provides technical support and 

training to enhance partner countries’ prosecutorial capabilities;

management of courts, police academies, and prisons; and to support law 

enforcement operations (e.g., training to support narcotics interdiction).

Funding for CARSI activities also provides support to partner countries to 

form specialized law enforcement units (also known as vetted units)17

 17Vetted units are groups of partner country law enforcement officials who undergo 

background checks, including polygraph examinations. These vetted units conduct 

complex investigations in areas such as firearms and narcotics trafficking, gangs, bulk 

cash smuggling, and money laundering. 

that 

are vetted by, and work with, U.S. personnel to investigate and disrupt the 

operations of transnational gangs and trafficking networks. Moreover, 

CARSI provides funding for partner countries to establish prevention 

activities designed to address underlying conditions (such as insufficient 

access to educational or economic opportunities and the prevalence of 

gangs) that leave communities vulnerable to crime and violence. Table 2 

provides examples of CARSI activities in the seven partner countries.
Page 15 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 2: Examples of Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Funded Activities in the Seven Partner Countries

CARSI

partner country

CARSI

funding account CARSI-funded activities

Belize State-INCLE The Improved Borders activity provides targeted border security training, equipment, and 

technical assistance to Belize. It includes training on hidden compartments, fraudulent 

documents, and non-intrusive inspection equipment at border checkpoints and ports, and a 

newly established Mobile Interdiction Unit comprised of Belizean police, customs, and 

immigration officers.

Costa Rica State-FMF The Coast Guard Maritime Support activity focuses on enhancing the Costa Rican Coast 

Guard’s maritime interdiction capabilities. This activity has provided two interdiction boats, 

associated equipment, operator training, and communication equipment to the Costa Rican 

Coast Guard.

El Salvador State-INCLE U.S. law enforcement mentors from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement manage vetted units of 

El Salvador police and prosecutors to build these units’ capacity to pursue complex 

investigations. For example, one vetted unit works with local El Salvadoran law enforcement 

personnel to identify gang structures, leadership, and infrastructure, and uses laws and 

investigative skills to disrupt gang operations. In the last quarter of 2012, this unit initiated a 

wiretap investigation that identified 30 members of a transnational extortion ring. In addition, 

according to U.S. law enforcement officials, this vetted unit has collected intelligence that has 

been used to convict criminals.

Guatemala USAID-ESF The Violence Prevention activity focuses on reducing the vulnerability of at-risk youth to 

gangs and criminal organizations, improving trust between police and community in target 

areas, and institutionalizing crime prevention policies at the national level. The activity has 

focused on the creation of Violence Prevention Commissions created by a joint task team of 

Guatemalan government officials and community leaders, and the development of Violence 

Prevention Plans by these commissions. These plans focus on gender issues and respond to 

community needs, such as education, work training, and increasing employment 

opportunities for young at-risk men and women.

Honduras USAID-ESF The Improving Education to Work, Learn, and Overcome activity provides at-risk youth living 

in areas vulnerable to drug trafficking and gangs with skills training. The activity creates 

alliances between Honduran organizations and the private sector to provide basic education 

and career readiness training to improve the preparation, competitiveness, and employability 

of at-risk youth.

Nicaragua State-ESF The Anti-Corruption activity aims to promote ethical behavior in the public and private sectors 

of society through education and awareness of corruption in its various forms throughout 

Nicaragua.

Panama State-INCLE The Police Reform activity works to build the capacity of Panamanian police units through 

training, mentoring, and the provision of equipment. The goal is for the Panamanian police to 

become a more modern, community-based police service that works within communities to 

effectively police and lower crime, while combating serious crimes such as drug trafficking, 

gangs, and money laundering. Police personnel receive training on police curriculum and 

criminal investigations, as well as on the Comparative Statistics (CompStat) activity designed 

to improve intelligence-led policing.

Source: State and USAID.

a

Notes: INCLE is the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account; FMF is the 

Foreign Military Financing account; ESF is the Economic Support Fund account; and USAID is the 

United States Agency for International Development.

a

According to Embassy Panama officials, CompStat is being incorporated into the Panamanian 

National Police precincts and all police personnel were to be using the system as of July 1, 2013.
Page 16 GAO-13-771 Central America

As of March 31, 2013, U.S. agencies estimated that they had allocated 

approximately $708 million in non-CARSI funding that supported CARSI 

goals from fiscal year 2008 through the first half of fiscal year 2013, with 

State, USAID, and DOD allocating the largest amount of non-CARSI 

funds to support CARSI goals.18

The allocated amount of non-CARSI funding supporting CARSI goals was 

43 percent greater than the allocated amount of funds for CARSI 

activities, as of March 31, 2013. The largest share of non-CARSI funding 

was allocated to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, as shown in 

table 3.

U.S. agencies (State, USAID, DOD, 

DOJ, and DHS) reported using their non-CARSI funding to implement a 

range of activities that supported CARSI goals, including providing 

training, technical assistance, equipment, infrastructure, and investigation 

and operational support to partner countries. To estimate the amount of 

non-CARSI assistance that has been allocated for partner countries that 

supported CARSI goals, we collected data from State and USAID as well 

as DOD, DOJ, DHS, and Treasury for fiscal year 2008 through the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2013. We did not report data on 

disbursements of non-CARSI funding because these data were not 

readily available for some agencies owing to the complexity and 

challenges associated with how these agencies track their disbursement 

data.

 18In collecting these data, we asked agencies to provide funding data for activities that 

they determined supported one or more of CARSI’s five pillars. In addition, we asked 

agencies to provide only data on non-CARSI funding that directly assisted partner 

countries such as funding for training, equipment, infrastructure, and operational or 

investigative support. To avoid double-counting across agencies, we asked them to 

provide data on activities funded through their own appropriations. To the extent possible, 

we worked with the agencies to obtain uniform information and to minimize the risks of 

underestimating or overestimating the reported allocation amounts. In doing so, we 

worked with the agencies to make adjustments to the data they provided, as appropriate.

U.S. Agencies Have 

Allocated an Estimated 

$708 Million in Non-CARSI 

Funding since Fiscal Year 

2008 for Various Activities 

That Supported CARSI 

Goals
Page 17 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 3: Estimated U.S. Non-Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Funds Allocated That Support CARSI Goals, 

by Country, as of March 31, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

FY 2013 (first 

two quarters) Total

Honduras 16,896 2,791 38,654 30,635 57,748 11,646 158,369

Guatemala 21,518 25,759 36,494 29,727 39,350 7,390 160,238

El Salvador 20,786 18,305 16,835 19,124 18,352 5,207 98,608

Panama 5,750 11,265 18,019 25,053 21,078 4,297 85,462

Regional 14,292 a 12,110 7,541 15,117 11,490 0 60,499 b

Nicaragua 12,946 9,400 18,783 18,643 9,289 8,960 78,022

Belize 2,670 1,325 11,554 8,007 8,470 2,111 34,136

Costa Rica 2,193 3,707 13,080 6,404 6,051 1,687 33,123

Non-CARSI total 97,050 84,660 160,961 152,710 171,829 41,247 708,457

Source: GAO analysis of DHS, DOJ, DOD, State, and USAID data.

Notes: Data are from fiscal year 2008 to the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. Non-CARSI reported 

amounts are from the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Department of 

Defense, Department of State, and United States Agency for International Development. Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) data are not included in the Department of Justice data for fiscal 

years 2008 and 2009 because DEA transitioned to a new financial system during fiscal year 2009 and 

data for these years were not readily available, according to DEA officials. Amounts have been 

rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals.

a

For the purposes of the non-CARSI allocations data, we defined regional programming as 

programming that benefited more than one CARSI country, or that benefited a mix of CARSI and nonCARSI countries. In those cases where the programming benefited CARSI and non-CARSI countries, 

we worked with agencies to determine the percentage of the overall allocated amounts that were 

directed to CARSI countries and updated the allocation amounts accordingly.

b

USAID reported a negative allocation of $50,000 for regional programming for the first two quarters 

of fiscal year 2013, but we are reporting this number as zero.

According to State officials, the U.S. government has identified CARSI as 

its primary initiative for addressing citizen security threats in Central 

America. U.S. agencies developed an interagency strategy to ensure an 

integrated approach to all U.S. citizen security activities in Central 

America whether funded through CARSI or other sources. Established in 

2012, the strategy sets up CARSI and its five goals as the national policy 

framework for all U.S. government citizen security efforts in Central 

America and states that agencies’ activities in the region should link to 

one or more of the CARSI pillars. Agency officials noted that because the 

goals of CARSI are broad, a wide array of activities can be seen as 

supporting the goals, and agencies have sought to align their own 

strategy documents with the interagency strategy and five pillars of 

CARSI. Officials from some U.S. agencies, including DOD and the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA), noted that the CARSI goals reflect the 
Page 18 GAO-13-771 Central America

types of activities that their agencies were already undertaking in the 

region. The largest shares of non-CARSI funds allocated are from State, 

USAID, and DOD (see table 4).

Table 4: Estimated U.S. Non-Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Funds Allocated That Support CARSI Goals, 

by Agency, as of March 31, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Agency FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012

FY 2013 (first 

two quarters) Total

State 45,331 45,688 43,958 49,254 52,841 11,519 248,592

USAID 37,616 30,861 72,439 54,400 53,232 7,975 256,523

DOD 14,079 7,892 40,518 45,418 60,964 20,482 189,353

DOJ 14 a 181 3,981 3,544 4,280 883 12,883

DHS 11 37 64 94 513 388 1,107

Non-CARSI total 97,050 84,660 160,961 152,710 171,829 41,247 708,457

Source: GAO analysis of DHS, DOJ, DOD, State, and USAID data.

Notes: Data are from fiscal year 2008 to the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. Non-CARSI reported 

amounts are from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State (State), and United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID). Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and 

therefore may not sum to totals.

a

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data are not included in the DOJ totals for fiscal years 2008 

and 2009 because DEA transitioned to a new financial system during fiscal year 2009 and data for 

these years were not readily available, according to DEA officials.

U.S. agencies reported using their non-CARSI funding to implement a 

range of activities that supported CARSI goals, including providing 

training, technical assistance, equipment, infrastructure, and investigation 

and operational support to partner countries. For example, State funds 

complementary activities from a variety of non-CARSI sources, including 

security assistance accounts such as the International Military Education 

and Training account; other foreign assistance accounts, such as the 

Democracy Fund; and non-foreign assistance sources, such as the 

Conflict Stabilization Operations account. State identified 11 offices that 

support complementary citizen security activities in Central America with 

U.S. Agencies Use NonCARSI Funding for 

Activities That Support 

CARSI Goals
Page 19 GAO-13-771 Central America

non-CARSI funds.19

In addition, DOD, DHS, and DOJ also use funding other than CARSI to 

implement activities in Central America that support CARSI goals. For 

example, according to officials,

For example, according to State officials, State’s 

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations funded mediation and 

community dialogue activities in Belize to reduce gang violence that 

complemented a related CARSI-funded activity. State’s Bureau of 

Political-Military Affairs used non-CARSI FMF funding to provide boats to 

Panama’s Coast Guard to assist in conducting drug interdictions in 

Panama’s territorial waters. USAID used non-CARSI Development 

Assistance funds to support a variety of activities in the rule of law and 

human rights, good governance, political competition and conflict 

resolution, and education areas. For example, USAID is using non-CARSI 

Development Assistance funds in Guatemala to help strengthen its 

security and justice sector institutions, according to USAID officials.

• DOD has used funds from its Central Transfer Account for 

Counternarcotics to help establish an interagency border unit along 

the Guatemala/Mexico border to support Guatemalan efforts to stop 

the illicit movement of people and contraband. In Panama, a DOD 

medical team used non-CARSI funds to work with the Panamanian 

Ministry of Health in a poor and remote area in Panama to provide 

medical attention to this community. In Belize, DOD used non-CARSI 

funds for equipment, training, and infrastructure, including 

construction of a Belize Coast Guard Joint Operation Center that 

houses drug interdiction boats provided with funds for CARSI 

activities (see fig. 3).

 19The 11 offices and bureaus include the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues 

and the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons; and the Bureaus of PoliticalMilitary Affairs; Conflict and Stabilization Operations; Democracy, Human, Rights, and 

Labor; Population, Refugees, and Migration; International Security and Nonproliferation; 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; Counterterrorism; 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs; and Educational and Cultural Affairs.
Page 20 GAO-13-771 Central America

Figure 3: Non-Central America Regional Security Initiative Funding (CARSI) Funding for Belize Coast Guard Joint Operation 

Center and CARSI-Funded Equipment

• DHS and its components used non-CARSI funding to support 

activities such as training by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on 

how to conduct searches and seizures at ports of entry that 

complemented other types of CARSI support.

• DOJ and its components used non-CARSI funding to support a variety 

of activities designed to improve partner countries’ law enforcement 

capabilities. For example, DEA provided funding to support vetted 

Sensitive Investigative Units in Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama.

While not included in our reported non-CARSI allocation totals above, 

U.S. agencies also used other non-CARSI resources to support CARSI 

goals in ways other than directly funding activities in partner countries. 

For example, Treasury has used non-CARSI funding to pay for the 

salaries and other costs associated with posting its personnel in several 

partner countries to serve as resident advisors. These advisors work with 

the partner countries to improve their ability to detect and prevent money 

laundering and have used funding for CARSI activities to implement 

regional programs. In addition, the FBI’s Criminal Investigations Division 

has not directly funded non-CARSI activities in partner countries; 

however, it has assigned personnel to Transnational Anti-Gang Units that 

have been set up in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Agencies 
Page 21 GAO-13-771 Central America

such as CBP, the U.S. Coast Guard, and DOD also support CARSI goals 

by using their assets, including aircraft and boats, to conduct 

counternarcotics operations in Central America. For example, U.S. 

agencies contribute resources to Operation Martillo, which is a joint 

counternarcotics operation involving the U.S. government, several partner 

countries, and other international partners.

When selecting activities to fund under CARSI, State and USAID took 

steps to help identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive 

capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. citizen security assistance 

investments in partner countries. First, State and USAID officials used 

assessment reports to help identify and consider partner country needs 

and absorptive capacities. Second, State and USAID officials used 

outreach meetings with officials from partner country governments, other 

donor governments, and international organizations to consider partner 

country needs, absorptive capacities, and non-U.S. citizen security 

assistance investments in partner countries. Third, State and USAID 

officials used interagency meetings at embassies in partner countries and 

in Washington, D.C., to coordinate U.S. efforts, as well as to help identify 

and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related 

non-U.S. investments in partner countries.

State officials used assessment reports to help identify and consider 

partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting activities 

to fund under CARSI.20

 20Generally, assessment reports were produced by technical subject matter experts who 

gathered primary data—through interviews with relevant U.S. agency and partner country 

officials—on any gaps or deficiencies in a partner country’s capacity to provide citizen 

security. These reports typically include suggested solutions to address identified gaps or 

deficiencies.

For example, State conducted reviews of the 

forensic capabilities in six partner countries over the course of 2011 to 

evaluate the crime scene investigation, prosecution, and forensic science 

programs and capacities in each country. In a 2011 report, State 

assessed deficiencies in these areas and developed recommendations to 

address those deficiencies. According to State, State officials used the 

conclusions and recommendations from this report to inform their 

decisions on selecting activities to fund under CARSI. State officials also 

reported that they used assessment reports produced by interagency 

State and USAID Took 

Steps to Consider 

Partner Country 

Needs, Absorptive 

Capacities, and 

Investments When 

Selecting CARSI 

Activities

Assessment Reports Used 

to Help Identify and 

Consider Partner Country 

Needs and Absorptive 

Capacities
Page 22 GAO-13-771 Central America

partners to determine assistance needs, refine assistance efforts, and 

avoid absorptive capacity issues. For example, State officials used a 

series of technical assessment reports on the law enforcement and 

interdiction capabilities and needs of key Central American land ports of 

entry produced by CBP. Similarly, State officials reported that they used 

comprehensive assessment reports on the firearms regulations, 

oversight, investigative, and forensic capabilities of Central American 

governments produced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives to determine that firearms interdiction activities could assist in 

reducing the trafficking of arms into the region.

USAID officials also used assessment reports to help identify and 

consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities when selecting 

activities to fund under CARSI. For example, USAID officials reported that 

they used assessment reports to help identify and consider partner 

country juvenile justice and community policing needs and absorptive 

capacities; these assessment reports included specific recommendations 

for designing and selecting juvenile justice and community policing 

projects in partner countries. According to USAID officials in Washington, 

D.C., and at U.S. embassies, USAID staff used information from these 

and other assessment reports to help select and design CARSI activities 

in partner countries. In addition, both State and USAID officials used 

country-specific CARSI assessment reports—produced by embassy staff 

in November 2009 and covering all seven partner countries—to help 

identify and consider partner country needs and absorptive capacities 

when selecting activities to fund under CARSI. These country-specific 

assessment reports included information on (1) the partner country’s 

security environment, (2) embassy and host government perspectives on 

the effectiveness of activities implemented to date, (3) partner country 

strengths and weaknesses and opportunities and threats, and (4) the 

partner country’s regional and bilateral security engagements.

State and USAID officials also used outreach meetings with host 

government officials to help identify and consider partner country needs, 

absorptive capacities, and non-U.S. citizen security assistance 

investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under 

CARSI. Outreach meetings included both routine interactions between 

U.S. agency and host government officials—at the subject matter expert 

level—and broader, high-level meetings, typically at the ambassador and 

head of host government level. At these meetings, topics such as the 

status of current CARSI activities and the future of CARSI programming, 

including potential future CARSI activities, can be discussed. For 

Outreach Meetings Used to 

Help Identify and Consider 

Partner Country Needs, 

Absorptive Capacities, and 

Non-U.S. Investments
Page 23 GAO-13-771 Central America

example, embassy officials in one partner country reported that they held 

an ambassador/head of host government-level meeting with a delegation 

from the host government in June 2010. At this meeting, the U.S. 

government and the host government agreed to pursue bilateral, 

multiagency efforts to combat identified threats from transnational illicit 

trafficking and criminal organizations. Following this high-level meeting, 

embassy and host government officials established bilateral working 

groups to identify and develop activities in the partner country in areas 

such as border security, counternarcotics operations and strategy, gang 

prevention and law enforcement, community development, asset seizure, 

and investigation and prosecution. These bilateral working groups 

provided input on selecting activities to fund under CARSI and are now 

coordinating information-sharing efforts and progress updates on those 

activities.

State and USAID officials also used outreach meetings with other donor 

governments and international organizations to help identify and consider 

non-U.S. citizen security investments in partner countries when selecting 

CARSI activities. For example, in one partner country, embassy officials 

reported that they held numerous meetings with other donor 

governments. Through these outreach meetings, embassy officials were 

able to identify one donor government’s investments in police intelligence 

in the partner country and consequently reduced funding for CARSI 

activities in that area. Also, through regular outreach meetings, embassy 

officials in the same partner country reported that they were able to 

identify another donor government’s investments in ballistic imaging 

systems in the partner country. Embassy officials subsequently redirected 

funding for CARSI activities that would otherwise have been spent in that 

area.

State and USAID officials also used meetings with other donor 

governments through the Group of Friends of Central America’s Security 

Experts Group to help identify and consider non-U.S. citizen security 

assistance investments in partner countries when selecting activities to 

fund under CARSI. For example, through Group of Friends and other 

donor meetings, State reported that they worked with another donor 

government to coordinate an anti-crime capacity-building activity for a 

partner country by de-conflicting donor purchases and leveraging 

investments between the U.S. and the other donor government. In 

addition, both USAID and State reported that they utilized a donor 

database on third-country and multilateral assistance hosted by the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) to help identify and consider non-U.S. 

investments. The database includes information on projects sponsored by 
Page 24 GAO-13-771 Central America

other donors and international organizations in partner countries, such as 

when the project started, when it is scheduled to be completed, and the 

total project cost. State officials said that they are eager for IDB to update 

the database with more detailed donor information that could increase the 

effectiveness of U.S. agencies’ efforts to coordinate with other donors.

When selecting activities to fund under CARSI, State and USAID officials 

also used interagency meetings at embassies in all seven partner 

countries to coordinate U.S. efforts, as well as to help identify and 

consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related nonU.S. investments in those partner countries. For example, embassy 

officials in one partner country reported that they used interagency 

meetings to discuss the partner country’s needs for a digital radio 

communication network to connect the host government’s police, military, 

and related agencies and the ability of the partner country to absorb such 

assistance. State and DOD officials used information from the 

interagency meetings to help design and select a digital radio 

communication project using both CARSI and non-CARSI funding. 

According to agency officials, by involving DOD in the project selection 

process, embassy officials leveraged DOD’s contribution to help meet the 

partner country’s needs and help the partner country conduct joint 

operations with the United States. In another partner country, embassy 

officials reported that they used interagency meetings to identify and 

consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. 

agency non-CARSI investments to support the host government’s efforts 

to regain control over a conflict-ridden portion of the country. According to 

agency officials, through the interagency meetings, U.S. agencies 

identified and considered these factors and coordinated the use of CARSI 

and non-CARSI funding to support the host government’s efforts.

State and USAID officials also reported that they used high-level 

interagency meetings, such as those of the Central America Interagency 

Working Group (IAWG) in Washington, D.C., to help identify and consider 

partner country needs and coordinate related U.S. agency non-CARSI 

investments in partner countries when selecting activities to fund under

CARSI. The IAWG was launched in February 2012 and includes 

representatives from State and USAID, as well as representatives from 

other agencies engaged in citizen security efforts in Central America, 

including DHS, DOD, DOJ, and Treasury. According to State, from March 

2012 through April 2013, the IAWG and its associated subgroups held 21 

meetings. Through interagency meetings, State officials were able identify 

and consider non-CARSI proposed investments when selecting activities 

Interagency Meetings Used 

to Coordinate U.S. Efforts 

and Help Identify and 

Consider Partner Country 

Needs, Absorptive 

Capacities, and Non-U.S. 

Investments
Page 25 GAO-13-771 Central America

to fund under CARSI; for example, according to State, officials identified 

and considered non-CARSI proposed border management and migration 

projects for the region. State officials coordinated the disbursement of 

CARSI and non-CARSI funds to support the implementation of these 

border management and migration projects, while avoiding duplication 

among activities. In addition, through interagency meetings, agency 

officials were able to review various CARSI and non-CARSI land border 

security and interdiction activities and identified land border security 

short-to-medium-term capacity deficits. Consequently, agency officials 

are working to focus U.S. land interdiction security assistance on a limited 

number of high-impact engagements designed to increase seizures of 

contraband. By continuing to coordinate CARSI and non-CARSI 

investments through these interagency meetings, State officials said they 

will produce a more coordinated and integrated U.S. response to the 

region, with the goal of increasing seizures of contraband and supporting

partner country border security initiatives.

Using various mechanisms, State and USAID have reported on some 

CARSI results at the initiative, country, and project levels. For example, 

embassies in partner countries produce monthly CARSI implementation 

reports that identify the impacts of CARSI or related activities in the 

country. However, U.S. agencies have not assessed or reported their 

performance using the metrics outlined in a 2012 interagency strategy for 

Central America that are designed to measure the results of CARSI and 

complementary non-CARSI programming.21 USAID is currently 

implementing an evaluation of selected CARSI activities and State is 

planning an evaluation of some of its CARSI activities.

 21The strategy’s official title is Central America: U.S. Citizen Security Priorities and 

Programs Realigning Programming and Expectations to Achieve Measurable, Sustainable 

and High Impact Results (2012-2017). This document is labeled “Sensitive But 

Unclassified.”

U.S. Agencies 

Reported on Some 

CARSI Results, but 

Not on Progress 

toward Interagency 

Objectives, and 

Efforts Are Under 

Way to Evaluate 

CARSI Activities
Page 26 GAO-13-771 Central America

State and USAID monitored and reported on some CARSI results through 

a variety of mechanisms at the initiative, country, and project levels. 

Initiative-level reporting addresses CARSI results across the different 

CARSI accounts and the seven partner countries. Country-level reporting 

describes CARSI results in a particular partner country. Project-level 

reporting describes the results of individual CARSI projects.

According to State and USAID officials, the primary source of 

consolidated information on CARSI results at the initiative level—across 

accounts and countries—is State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere 

Affairs’ (WHA) annual Performance Plan and Report.22

WHA’s annual Performance Plan and Reports have identified areas 

where CARSI performance met or exceeded established targets, but also 

some areas where CARSI targets were not met. In its fiscal year 2012 

report, WHA identified six CARSI-specific metrics.

State and USAID 

use the annual Performance Plan and Report to monitor the performance 

of foreign assistance activities in the region. In its 2012 report, WHA 

provides information on some CARSI-wide results using a number of 

performance metrics that measure outputs against WHA’s established 

targets. For example, WHA uses metrics such as narcotics seizures and 

the establishment of local crime prevention groups to measure CARSI 

results. To produce the information on CARSI results in the report, WHA 

aggregated data on activities funded through all CARSI accounts and in 

all seven partner countries.

23

 22State and USAID require that all State and USAID offices implementing foreign 

assistance programs annually submit a performance plan and report that identifies the 

results achieved during the 12 months of the fiscal year. In addition, offices are required to 

set performance targets for projected results in future years. Fiscal year 2008 was the first 

year that offices were required to complete a performance plan and report. 

WHA reported that 

CARSI results exceeded fiscal year 2012 targets for three of the six 

metrics. For example, for a metric related to narcotics seizures, WHA 

reported that the amount of seizures exceeded the established target by 

62 percent. However, WHA reported that CARSI did not meet its targets 

for two of the six metrics. For example, CARSI results for a metric related 

to improvements to partner countries’ court systems were 67 percent of 

the established target in fiscal year 2012. Finally, for the sixth CARSI23We do not provide more detailed information on the CARSI results discussed in the 

2012 Performance Plan and Report because the document is labeled “Sensitive But 

Unclassified.”

U.S. Agencies Reported on 

Some CARSI Results 

through Various 

Mechanisms

The Primary Source for 

Initiative-Level Reporting on 

CARSI Results Is the Annual 

Performance Plan and Report
Page 27 GAO-13-771 Central America

specific metric, State did not establish a fiscal year 2012 target against 

which to measure CARSI results. WHA noted that in its fiscal year 2012 

report there are eight additional metrics that included combined results 

information on CARSI and other initiatives in the Western Hemisphere, 

but these metrics did not provide separate results information for CARSIfunded activities. For example, WHA reported that CARSI and other 

initiatives in the region together exceeded their target for a metric related 

to the training of foreign law enforcement officers by almost 75 percent in 

fiscal year 2012.

State and USAID also report on CARSI results at the country level.

According to State and USAID officials, monthly CARSI implementation 

reports produced by the embassies in each partner country are one of the 

key ways in which they monitor and report on CARSI results at the 

country level. State and USAID officials stated that these implementation 

reports are part of their ongoing effort to monitor the impact and 

effectiveness of CARSI and related non-CARSI assistance. State requires 

embassies to include in the reports a section discussing the impact of 

CARSI and related activities. These impact sections do not provide 

information on performance relative to established CARSI metrics or 

specific goals, but instead consist of descriptions of the results of various 

activities taking place in the partner countries over the course of the 

month. For example, one embassy reported in May 2013 that the host 

government used a body scanner purchased with CARSI funds to 

successfully detect a man attempting to smuggle narcotics onto a plane 

bound for the United States. A different embassy reported in April 2013 

that a CARSI-supported anti-gang education and training program had 

been successfully expanded nationwide and had taught over 3,000 

children over 3 years of the program. The 55 monthly reports we 

reviewed included a range of other results from CARSI-funded activities 

that were identified by embassies, but we also found that some 

embassies did not always link some of the reported results to specific 

U.S. assistance activities.24

 24We reviewed 8 reports from each of the seven partner countries except Nicaragua, for 

which we reviewed 7 reports, for a total of 55 reports. We asked State to provide the 3 

most recent reports produced by each embassy as of May 2013, as well as reports from 

earlier years going back to fiscal year 2009.

For example, a number of reports noted 

seizures or arrests made by the host government, but the reports did not 

provide any information on how CARSI or related U.S. non-CARSI 

assistance had facilitated these efforts.

State and USAID Produce 

Some Country-Level Reporting 

on CARSI Results
Page 28 GAO-13-771 Central America

State officials identified INL’s annual end-use monitoring reports as a 

second mechanism for monitoring and reporting on CARSI activities at 

the country level, although these end-use monitoring reports are not 

specific to CARSI. State officials said that these end-use monitoring 

reports are used to monitor all INCLE-funded items that have been 

provided to the partner country to ensure that items are accounted for and 

used in accordance with the terms agreed to by the U.S. government and 

the partner country.25

Finally, USAID officials noted that annual portfolio reviews conducted by 

USAID missions in partner countries are an important tool for reporting 

CARSI results at the country level. USAID first began requiring its 

missions to conduct such reviews in November 2012. According to 

USAID guidance, portfolio reviews should, among other things, examine 

the mission’s progress in achieving its objectives over the past year. The 

portfolio reviews that we examined included varying levels of information 

about CARSI results. For example, one review did not provide any results 

information, but instead provided a general description of the types of 

As part of the end-use monitoring reports, State 

requires embassy officials to include a discussion of the impact of any 

INCLE-funded equipment, infrastructure, training, or other services that 

have been provided, including under CARSI. The reports from partner 

countries for fiscal years 2009 through 2012 identified a number of 

positive results from CARSI assistance. For example, the embassy in El 

Salvador stated in its 2012 end-use monitoring report that trucks provided 

to the national police had a significant impact on the number of cases 

investigated and improved the national police’s response capabilities.

However, the reports also identified some issues related to upkeep, 

maintenance, and use of CARSI-funded equipment. For example, the 

embassy in Guatemala reported in 2012 that 11 motorcycles provided to 

the National Police became inoperable as a result of a lack of proper 

maintenance and funding; State then covered the cost of refurbishing the 

motorcycles.

 25Federal law requires that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure that aircraft and other 

equipment made available to foreign countries by INL are used only in ways that are 

consistent with the purposes for which such equipment was made available (22 U.S.C. 

sec. 2291c(b)). In addition, federal law requires the establishment of a program to monitor 

the end use of all defense articles and services sold, leased, or exported under the Arms 

Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, in order to provide 

reasonable assurance that the recipient is complying with requirements imposed by the 

U.S. government and that such articles and services are being used for the purposes for 

which they are provided. 22 U.S.C. § 2785.
Page 29 GAO-13-771 Central America

activities funded under the USAID mission’s portfolio. However, in other 

cases, the USAID missions did provide specific results information. For 

example, one mission reported that one of its programs had provided 

access to vocational training to improve job competitiveness for 1,763 

young people either at risk of becoming gang members or trying to leave 

gangs. In some cases, the portfolio reviews did not specify whether 

certain results were from CARSI or related non-CARSI projects.

State and USAID officials also stated that they perform certain monitoring 

and reporting on CARSI results at the project level. State’s INL conducts 

quarterly desk reviews of INCLE-funded CARSI activities to track the 

progress of projects over time. INL requires these quarterly desk reviews 

to include a discussion of the project objectives, measure project results 

against established performance metrics, and identify success stories. 

For example, INL reported in the quarterly desk review for one CARSI 

project that, as of the end of 2012, it had trained 259 host government 

investigators, prosecutors, and judges on the use of forensic evidence in 

court proceedings. In another quarterly desk review, INL reported that the 

project implementer had successfully developed an improved case 

management system to assist the Costa Rican Attorney General’s Office 

in conducting drug trafficking prosecutions. USAID also conducts 

quarterly reporting on its CARSI projects. USAID’s quarterly reports 

include information on the project’s accomplishments for the quarter and 

progress that had been made relative to the project’s established 

performance metrics. For example, in a report for the second quarter of 

fiscal year 2013, the implementer of USAID’s crime prevention program in 

Panama reported that it had met or exceeded its targets for 20 of the 

project’s 26 metrics, including its target for the number of municipalities 

that had set up municipal crime prevention committees.

While State and USAID have reported on some CARSI results, U.S. 

agencies have not assessed and reported on their results using the 

performance metrics identified in the February 2012 interagency citizen 

security strategy for Central America. U.S. agencies developed this 

strategy to help coordinate and focus the U.S. government’s CARSI and 

related non-CARSI activities in the region. In the interagency strategy, 

U.S. agencies outlined five metrics for measuring the performance of U.S. 

government citizen security programming, including CARSI activities, in 

achieving the strategy’s objectives. For example, the strategy includes a 

State and USAID Perform Some 

Project-Level Reporting That 

Identifies the Results of 

Individual CARSI Projects

U.S. Agencies Have Not 

Assessed and Reported 

Progress toward 

Objectives Outlined in the 

U.S. Interagency Strategy 

for Central America
Page 30 GAO-13-771 Central America

metric to reduce homicide rates each year from 2012 through 2017.26

According to WHA officials, the Central America Interagency Working 

Group plans to discuss how the U.S. government should report out on the 

strategy’s metrics, but also noted some challenges that agencies could 

face in doing so. For example, officials said that it may be difficult for U.S. 

agencies to separate out and delineate the impact of U.S. agencies’

activities from the impact of partner country activities independently 

conducted without U.S. assistance. Officials also noted that it is 

challenging to assess progress using some of the metrics, such as a 

metric addressing reductions in impunity rates in selected communities, 

because the necessary data may not be readily available. We recognize 

that collecting performance data may be challenging and could require 

some adjustments to performance metrics. However, in our 2012 report 

that identified key considerations for successfully implementing 

interagency collaboration mechanisms, such as the interagency strategy 

for Central America, we found that a key feature in the successful 

implementation of such mechanisms is the development of a system for 

monitoring and reporting on results.

According to State and USAID officials, the strategy and the metrics it 

identifies were developed through an iterative, interagency process that 

included other agencies such as DOD, DOJ, and DHS. However, to date, 

U.S. agencies have not assessed and reported on their performance 

using the metrics identified in the strategy.

27 Such a system is important 

because it helps the agencies involved in the interagency effort identify 

areas for improvement. In addition, in our past work identifying leading 

practices for performance management, we concluded that collecting 

performance data is a critical practice for agencies because it provides 

agencies with crucial information to guide decision making.28

 26We do not provide more detailed descriptions of the strategy’s metrics because the 

strategy is labeled “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

Without 

assessing progress in achieving the objectives in the interagency 

strategy, U.S. agencies lack important information on the performance of 

CARSI and related activities that could help guide future decision making.

Such information is important because, as noted in the strategy, the U.S. 

government is seeking to support a small number of high-impact activities 

27GAO-12-1022.

28GAO/GGD-96-118. 
Page 31 GAO-13-771 Central America

that have proven their effectiveness in solving the region’s most pressing 

problems.

USAID is currently conducting an evaluation of some of its CARSI 

activities, and State is developing an evaluation of INL activities under 

CARSI, consistent with its evaluation policy. USAID and State have both 

taken steps to monitor and report on the results of CARSI-funded 

activities. However, in our previous work we concluded that monitoring 

activities do not take the place of program evaluations.29

USAID is overseeing an impact evaluation to be completed in 2014 of its 

CARSI municipal crime prevention programming, which is the largest of 

its three major programming areas under CARSI.

As we previously 

concluded, monitoring is ongoing in nature and measures agencies’

progress in meeting established objectives, typically using performance 

metrics. Evaluations are individual, systematic studies that typically 

examine a broader range of information on program performance and its 

context than is feasible to monitor on an ongoing basis. Thus, evaluations 

allow for overall assessments of whether a program is working and what 

adjustments need to be made to improve results.

30

 29GAO, Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, 

The evaluation, which 

is being conducted by Vanderbilt University on behalf of USAID, is 

examining the impact of the program in El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Panama. For the study, Vanderbilt randomly assigned 

more than 100 neighborhoods to treatment and control groups, with the 

treatment neighborhoods receiving assistance under the program. To 

measure the impact of the program over time, Vanderbilt is collecting 

baseline, midpoint, and final data from the communities using both 

quantitative and qualitative data collection tools. As of July 2013, 

Vanderbilt was in the process of gathering and analyzing the midpoint 

data for the evaluation. According to USAID officials, the midpoint findings 

are still tentative and subject to change, but the preliminary results 

suggest that the programming has been effective in improving security in 

the targeted communities. For example, USAID officials stated that the 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2011). 

30USAID officials stated that they will also conduct evaluations of other CARSI activities 

that meet the criteria established in USAID’s 2011 evaluation policy. USAID’s evaluation 

policy requires each USAID operating unit to evaluate all projects that equal or exceed the 

average project size for that operating unit, at least once during the project’s lifetime.

USAID Is Conducting an 

Evaluation of Some of Its 

CARSI Activities, and State 

Is Planning an Evaluation
Page 32 GAO-13-771 Central America

preliminary results from El Salvador show that murder and robbery rates 

have been reduced in communities receiving USAID assistance under the 

program.

USAID officials identified a range of ways that they expect the crime 

prevention programming evaluation to assist them, once it is completed. 

For example, they expect the evaluation to provide evidence of the extent 

to which USAID’s crime prevention program reduced crime victimization 

and perceptions of insecurity in at-risk communities. USAID officials also 

anticipated that they would be able to use the evaluation’s findings as a 

tool to encourage partner countries to make their own investments in 

crime prevention activities.

State officials noted that they are currently working on a scope of work for 

an evaluation of CARSI activities. In 2012, State issued an evaluation 

policy that requires bureaus to evaluate two to four programs, projects, or 

activities every 2 years, starting in fiscal year 2012, with all “large”

programs, projects, and activities required to be evaluated at least once in 

their lifetime or every 5 years, whichever is less.31

 31See State, Department of State Program Evaluation Policy (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 

2012). The policy states that for each bureau, a “large” program, project, or activity is one 

where the dollar value or number of staff resources used is equal to or greater than the 

median amount for the bureau. 

The policy also 

requires all State bureaus to complete a bureau evaluation plan and to 

update it annually. According to State officials, given other priority areas, 

INL did not select CARSI for evaluation in its first bureau evaluation plan, 

covering fiscal years 2012 through 2014, although CARSI qualifies as a 

large program for INL. Nevertheless, INL officials stated that they intend 

to conduct an evaluation of their CARSI activities beginning in fiscal year 

2014, as CARSI approaches its 5-year point. INL officials stated that they 

are currently working on a scope of work for this evaluation, which will 

cover CARSI programming across the partner countries. INL officials 

stated that their intention is to issue a solicitation by the end of 2013 for a 

contractor to conduct the CARSI evaluation. However, INL officials noted 

that many decisions have not yet been made about the scope or 

methodology for the evaluation and that funding has not yet been secured 

for the evaluation. In regard to WHA, State officials noted that the bureau 

manages only a small percentage of State’s funding for CARSI activities. 

Given the small percentage of CARSI funding WHA manages, State 
Page 33 GAO-13-771 Central America

officials said that WHA does not have any plans to conduct a separate 

CARSI evaluation from the one INL intends to do.

Our guidance on evaluation design indicates that State could increase the 

value of any future evaluation it conducts by ensuring that it 

systematically plans the evaluation. As we have previously concluded, 

systematically planning for evaluations is important to (1) enhance the 

quality, credibility, and usefulness of evaluations and (2) use time and 

resources effectively.32

Table 5: GAO-Recommended Steps for Evaluation Design 

In our earlier work on evaluation design, we 

recommended that agencies take five steps to effectively design an 

evaluation, as shown in table 5.

1 Clarify understanding of the program’s goals and strategy.

2 Develop relevant and useful evaluation questions.

3 Select an appropriate evaluation approach or design for each evaluation question.

4 Identify data sources and collection procedures to obtain relevant, credible 

information.

5 Develop plans to analyze the data in ways that allow valid conclusions to be drawn 

from the evaluation questions.

Source: GAO.

Evaluations of CARSI activities, such as the one that INL has stated it 

intends to undertake, could provide State with important information to 

help it manage and oversee CARSI. As State’s evaluation policy notes, 

evaluations are essential to documenting program impact and identifying 

best practices and lessons learned. Among other things, an evaluation 

could help State as it seeks to identify successful CARSI activities and 

determine how best to replicate them in other locations.

State officials noted that designing a CARSI evaluation will be challenging 

because CARSI involves a diverse set of activities that are being 

implemented in seven different countries. Thus, State officials stated that 

one challenge they will face in evaluating CARSI is selecting a mix of 

activities to evaluate that are sufficiently representative of their various 

CARSI activities that conclusions can be drawn about the broader impact 

 32GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

2012). 
Page 34 GAO-13-771 Central America

of their CARSI efforts. Given such challenges, effectively planning any 

CARSI evaluation would help State ensure that the evaluation provides 

the types of information it can use to guide future decisions about CARSI 

programming.

CARSI partner countries face significant challenges that threaten the 

security of their citizens as well as the interests of the United States. U.S. 

agencies have allocated over $1.2 billion to support a range of activities 

to help partner countries respond to these threats. While State and 

USAID have reported on some results from CARSI-funded activities, the 

agencies have not worked with their interagency partners to assess 

progress made in meeting performance targets outlined in the 2012 U.S. 

interagency citizen security strategy for Central America. Without 

assessing their performance meeting these targets, agencies lack 

important information on progress made toward achieving the objectives 

outlined in the interagency strategy that could help guide future decisions. 

To evaluate some of its CARSI activities, USAID is currently overseeing 

an evaluation of its CARSI crime prevention programming and intends to 

use the evaluation to help it better target, design, and prioritize future 

CARSI programming. State is planning an evaluation of some of its 

CARSI activities as the initiative approaches its 5-year mark. These 

evaluations will help agencies better manage and oversee their programs 

and activities. Among other things, the evaluations can be used to (1) 

help agencies assess the effectiveness of completed activities, (2) modify 

the current mix of existing projects to increase program effectiveness, and 

(3) better prioritize future projects to achieve results. While these are 

commendable steps, assessing progress made toward achieving the 

objectives outlined in the U.S. interagency strategy for Central America 

would provide important information on the performance of CARSI and 

related U.S. government activities and better guide U.S. decision making.

To help ensure that U.S. agencies have relevant information on the 

progress of CARSI and related U.S. government activities, we 

recommend that the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator 

direct their representatives on the Central America Interagency Working 

Group to work with the other members to assess the progress of CARSI 

and related U.S. government activities in achieving the objectives outlined 

in the U.S. government’s interagency citizen security strategy for Central 

America.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
Page 35 GAO-13-771 Central America

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State, Treasury, 

and USAID for their review and comment. DHS, State, and USAID 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

USAID and State also provided written comments, which are reproduced 

in appendixes IV and V, respectively. In their written comments, State and 

USAID both concurred with our recommendation and State noted that 

GAO’s recommended steps for evaluation design would guide an 

evaluation of CARSI programming.

As discussed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 

of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to DHS, DOD, DOJ, State, 

Treasury, and USAID, and other interested parties. In addition, the report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this

report are listed in appendix VI.

Charles Michael Johnson, Jr.

Director

International Affairs and Trade

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-13-771 Central America

This report (1) provides an updated assessment of U.S. agencies’ funding 

and activities that support Central America Regional Security Initiative 

(CARSI) goals; (2) examines whether U.S. agencies took steps to 

consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. 

and non-U.S. investments when selecting activities to fund under CARSI; 

and (3) examines information on the extent to which U.S. agencies 

reported CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities.

To assess U.S. agencies’ funding and activities that supported CARSI 

goals, we obtained data and program documentation from the 

Department of State (State) and the United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID) concerning funds allocated to support 

programs in Central American countries under the Mérida Initiative in 

fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and under CARSI from fiscal year 2010 to 

June 1, 2013, through four accounts—International Narcotics Control and 

Law Enforcement (INCLE); Economic Support Fund (ESF); 

Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs 

(NADR); and Foreign Military Financing (FMF). We obtained the data 

from each bureau at State that administers those accounts: International 

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), Western Hemisphere 

Affairs (WHA), International Security and Nonproliferation, 

Counterterrorism, and Political-Military Affairs. We also obtained data 

from USAID, which also allocates and implements the ESF account. In 

particular, State and USAID provided data on the status of allocations, 

unobligated balances, unliquidated obligations, and disbursements for the 

ESF account; State also provided these data for the INCLE and NADR 

accounts. State’s bureaus and USAID administer the accounts separately 

and utilize their own data collection systems and budgeting terms.

To address differences between their systems, we provided State and 

USAID with the definitions from GAO’s A Glossary of Terms Used in the 

Federal Budget Process and requested that State and USAID provide the 

relevant data according to those definitions.1

 1

GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, 

To the extent possible, we 

worked with agencies to ensure that they provided data that met these 

definitions. However, the Department of Defense budgets and tracks FMF 

funds in a different way than the other foreign assistance accounts that 

support CARSI. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and 

GAO-05-734SP

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-13-771 Central America

the Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible 

for the financial systems that account for FMF funds, as well as tracking 

the implementation and disbursement of those funds. DSCA’s system can 

only track FMF uncommitted and committed amounts, not unliquidated 

obligations or disbursements. DFAS tracks disbursements using the 

Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct link 

between the DSCA and DFAS systems and the DFAS system does not 

track funding for specific initiatives, such as CARSI. Therefore, State was 

not able to provide data on unliquidated obligations or disbursements, but 

it was able to provide us with data on CARSI FMF allocations and 

commitments.

In providing technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials 

reported an amount of close to $10.6 million in additional INCLE funding 

that was allocated for CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not 

been previously reported to GAO. State officials also said that they could 

not provide obligation or disbursement information related to this amount 

because these INCLE funds are centrally managed and State’s financial 

systems do not allow them to track such funds by region or country. 

According to State, that is why these funds were not previously reported 

to GAO. We followed up with State officials to confirm that the funds had 

been applied to CARSI activities and to document the programs toward 

which the funds had been applied. Although State officials were not able 

to provide information for the obligation or disbursement of these funds, 

we have included this amount in the total allocated for CARSI activities. 

We made note of this discrepancy in presenting this data in the report.

2

We also interviewed officials from each of State’s bureaus and USAID on 

their budgeting process and terms to determine the best method for 

collecting comparable data across accounts. We then reviewed the data 

and consulted with State and USAID on the accuracy and completeness 

of the information. When we found discrepancies, we contacted relevant 

agency officials and worked with them to resolve the discrepancies. We 

noted any differences in the ways the agencies collected, categorized, or 

reported their data in notes to the tables in this report. To assess the 

reliability of the data provided, we requested and reviewed information 

from agency officials regarding the underlying financial data systems and 

 2

Because State was unable provide a breakout of this almost $10.6 million in INCLE 

funds, total allocations of $484 million, which excludes this amount, were used to make 

comparisons against obligations and disbursements.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-13-771 Central America

the checks, controls, and reviews used to generate the data and ensure 

its accuracy and reliability. We determined that the data provided were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Furthermore, to identify 

equipment, training, and other related activities supported by funding for 

CARSI activities, we reviewed program documentation and interviewed 

relevant officials from State and USAID regarding the status of program 

implementation and the types of equipment, training, and other activities 

provided to partner countries to date. In addition, we visited three partner 

countries—Belize, Guatemala, and Panama. We selected these three 

countries as a sample considering the following elements—the scope of 

the citizen security problem; the amount of funding for CARSI activities 

received from fiscal years 2008 to 2012, the range of CARSI activities 

undertaken, the extent of non-CARSI U.S. government activities that 

support CARSI objectives, and the extent of host government or other 

donor citizen security efforts in these countries. In these three countries, 

we met with U.S. agency officials as well as host government, 

international organization, and other donor government officials. We also 

visited CARSI and non-CARSI activity locations during these visits.

To determine how much non-CARSI assistance has been allocated for 

partner countries that supported CARSI goals, we collected data from 

State and USAID as well as DOD, the Department of Justice, the 

Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Treasury 

for fiscal year 2008 through the second quarter of fiscal year 2013. Data 

on disbursements of non-CARSI funding were not readily available for 

some agencies because of the complexity and challenges associated with 

how these agencies track their disbursement data. In collecting allocation 

data, we asked agencies to provide funding data only for activities that 

they determined supported one or more of the five pillars of CARSI. In 

addition, we asked agencies to provide only data on non-CARSI funding 

that directly assisted partner countries, such as funding for training, 

equipment, infrastructure, and operational or investigative support. To 

avoid double-counting across agencies, we asked agencies to provide 

data only on activities funded through their own appropriations. We 

requested non-CARSI data from all the agencies in a standardized 

format, but given differences in the agencies’ missions, budget 

processes, and data systems, there were variations in the responses we 

received. We worked with the agencies to resolve these discrepancies. 

For example, some agencies provided data on funding for the salaries of 

U.S. government employees, or the operation of U.S. equipment, such as 

aircraft. We determined that these types of funding did not constitute 

direct assistance to the partner countries and did not include these 

funding amounts in our totals. In addition, in certain cases, agencies 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-771 Central America

reported that they did not allocate non-CARSI funding to activities 

supporting CARSI goals in advance, but that they disbursed resources to 

programs that supported CARSI goals as needs arose. In these cases, 

we worked with the agencies to determine whether or not the disbursed 

amounts could be considered as equivalent to the allocation amounts 

given the nature of how the agencies’ programming was executed and 

made adjustments accordingly.

To assess the reliability of the non-CARSI data provided, we collected 

information from agency officials regarding their methodology for 

determining what non-CARSI funding to include as supporting CARSI 

goals and the process they used for generating the data. We worked with 

agencies to make adjustments to these methodologies if we identified 

concerns. As part of this effort, we gathered information from the 

agencies on potential risks of underestimates or overestimates of the 

allocation amounts they reported and how we might mitigate any potential 

overestimates. We then took steps to mitigate these issues to the extent 

possible. For example, some agencies provided us with funding data for 

regional programs that benefited both partner countries and non-CARSI 

countries. In these cases, we worked with the agencies to determine if 

there was an appropriate way of apportioning a percentage of the costs to 

the partner countries versus the other non-CARSI beneficiary countries. If 

possible, we adjusted the numbers accordingly; if adjustments were not 

feasible, we did not include the funding amounts in our totals. As part of 

our data reliability assessments, we also reviewed information on the 

underlying data systems used to produce the data and the checks, 

controls, and reviews the agencies perform to ensure the accuracy and 

reliability of data in these systems. There are certain inherent limitations 

in the data we collected because agencies were asked to make 

determinations, using their own judgments, about what portions of their 

non-CARSI funding supported CARSI goals. However, we believe that 

the steps we have taken mitigate these limitations, to the extent possible. 

Given this, we determined that, for the purposes of this report, the data 

were sufficiently reliable to provide estimates of agencies’ non-CARSI 

funding that supported CARSI goals. To determine the types of activities 

that this non-CARSI assistance funded, we reviewed documentation from 

U.S. agencies and also conducted interviews with agency officials at 

headquarters and in our three site-visit countries.

To examine whether U.S. agencies took steps to consider partner country 

needs, absorptive capacities, and related U.S. and non-U.S. investments 

when selecting activities to fund under CARSI, we interviewed State and 

USAID officials at headquarters and at the embassies in the three partner 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-771 Central America

countries we visited. In addition, we submitted specific written questions 

to two bureaus at State and USAID at headquarters and received written 

response documents on the steps State and USAID officials used to help 

identify and consider these key factors when selecting activities for 

funding under CARSI. We also worked with State officials at headquarters 

to develop written questions for the embassies in all seven partner 

countries on the steps they used to help identify and consider these key 

factors when selecting CARSI activities. We received comprehensive 

written response documents from the embassies in all partner countries 

with information cleared at the Deputy Chief of Mission level. We 

reviewed and analyzed the written response documents we received from 

two bureaus at State and USAID at headquarters and from embassies in 

all seven partner countries. Using these various data sources, we 

identified specific steps that State and USAID officials used to consider 

partner country needs, absorptive capacities, and investments when 

selecting CARSI activities. We also reviewed additional available written 

documentation on the steps State and USAID used to help identify and 

consider key factors, such as various assessment reports produced by 

State, USAID, and other agency officials; trip reports and status reports 

produced by agency officials; summary agendas from interagency 

meetings held at embassies and in headquarters; and documentation on 

the management and coordination of CARSI activities. We did not assess 

the extent or effectiveness of the steps that State and USAID took to 

identify and consider partner country needs, absorptive capacities, or 

U.S. and non-U.S. investments.

To examine information on the extent to which U.S. agencies reported 

CARSI results and evaluated CARSI activities, we interviewed State and 

USAID officials at headquarters and U.S. officials at the embassies in the 

three partner countries we visited. In addition, we submitted questions 

and received written responses from State and USAID headquarters, as 

well as from the embassies in all seven partner countries, which provided 

additional information on agencies’ results reporting and evaluation of 

CARSI activities. Using this information, we identified the key 

mechanisms State and USAID use for reporting CARSI results at the 

program, country, and project level. At the initiative level, we reviewed the 

WHA annual Performance Plan and Reports for fiscal years 2009 through 

2012 and the interagency strategy for citizen security in Central America 

and assessed the types of CARSI results identified in these documents. 

At the country level, we analyzed a non-probability sample of 55 monthly 

CARSI implementation reports produced by embassies in the partner 

countries. We selected this sample to ensure that we obtained a mix of 

old and recent reports from all 7 countries. This sample contained eight 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-771 Central America

reports from each of the seven partner countries, except for Nicaragua, 

which provided seven reports, and included the three most recent reports 

produced by each embassy as of May 2013, as well as reports from 

earlier years going back to fiscal year 2009. At the country level, we also 

reviewed completed INL annual End-Use Monitoring Reports from each 

of the seven partner countries for fiscal years 2009 to 2012 and a USAIDselected sample of five portfolio reviews from USAID offices in partner 

countries.3

We also compared U.S. agencies’ actions to assess and report their 

progress toward achieving the objectives in the interagency strategy for 

Central America against key considerations that we identified in 2012 for 

implementing interagency collaboration mechanisms.

Finally, we analyzed five INL Quarterly Desk Reviews and six 

USAID project reports to determine the types of CARSI results identified 

in project-level reporting. These reports were selected by State and 

USAID respectively as examples of their project-level reporting.

4 In our previous 

work, we found that one key feature in the successful implementation of 

such mechanisms is the development of a system for monitoring and 

reporting on results. In addition, we compared agencies’ activities against 

leading practices we identified in 1996 for performance management of 

federal programs.5

Given the wide variety of reporting done by State and USAID that 

identifies CARSI results, we were not able to provide comprehensive 

information on CARSI results. The results identified in the report are 

meant only as illustrative examples of the types of results identified by 

State and USAID and are not generalizable. We also used the interviews 

with State and USAID officials to determine the status of any completed, 

 3

The embassy in Nicaragua did not complete End-Use Monitoring Reports for fiscal years 

2009 and 2010. The six other embassies completed End-Use Monitoring Reports for all 

four fiscal years.

4

We developed this list of considerations through a review of relevant literature on 

collaboration mechanisms, interviews with experts on collaboration, and a review of 

findings from a number of our previous reports on collaboration in the federal government.

See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

5

We developed this list of practices through the study of the experiences of leading public 

sector organizations, a review of management studies of federal agencies, and interviews 

with federal executives and other experts on performance management. See GAO, 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-771 Central America

ongoing, or planned evaluations of CARSI. From USAID, we gathered 

information on the scope and methodology, current status, and expected 

uses of their impact evaluation of their municipal crime prevention 

program. We also gathered testimonial evidence from State on INL’s 

planned evaluation of its CARSI activities. In addition, we reviewed 

State’s 2012 Program Evaluation Policy and determined the extent to 

which INL and WHA had selected CARSI activities for evaluation in their 

bureau evaluation plans for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to September 

2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 43 GAO-13-771 Central America

To demonstrate how funding for Central America Regional Security 

Initiative (CARSI) activities have been allocated, obligated, and 

disbursed, we are providing the status of funds provided for CARSI 

activities as of June 1, 2013. The following tables show CARSI funds by 

account, describing how U.S. agencies have allocated, obligated, and 

disbursed funds (by year of appropriation) toward activities in partner 

countries. In addition, the tables show unobligated balances, which is the 

portion of an obligational authority that has not yet been obligated, and 

unliquidated obligations (or obligated balance), which is the amount of 

obligation already incurred for which payment has not yet been made.1

Funding for CARSI activities has primarily come from the International 

Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) and Economic Support 

Fund (ESF) accounts. In earlier years, funding also came from the 

Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs 

(NADR) and Foreign Military Financing (FMF) accounts.

The Department of State’s (State) Bureau for International Narcotics and 

Law Enforcement Affairs administers the CARSI INCLE funds. As of 

June 1, 2013, State had allocated the largest amount of its CARSI INCLE 

funds to Guatemala, regional programs, Honduras, and El Salvador (see 

table 6). In addition, State had disbursed approximately $122 million of 

INCLE funds to support partner countries (see table 7). In providing 

technical comments on a draft of this report, State officials reported an 

amount of close to $10.6 million in INCLE funding that was allocated for 

CARSI activities in fiscal year 2010 that had not been previously reported 

to GAO. State officials also said that they could not provide obligation or 

disbursement information related to this amount, because these INCLE 

funds are centrally managed and State’s financial systems do not allow 

them to track such funds by region or country. According to State, this is 

why these funds were not previously reported to GAO. We followed up 

with State officials to confirm that the funds had been applied to CARSI 

activities and to document the programs toward which the funds had been 

applied. Although State officials were not able to provide information on 

the obligation or disbursement of these funds, we have included this 

amount in the INCLE funding allocated for CARSI activities.

 1

GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005).

Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Status of CARSI INCLE 

Account Funds
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 44 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 6: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) Funding Allocated and Disbursed, by Fiscal Year 

Appropriated, toward Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in Partner Countries, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011a FY2012 FY2013 Total b

Belize

Allocated 1,152 2,569 3,388 c 3,067 c 3,725 0 13,901

Unobligated balance 0 0 2 6 d 0 d 0 8

Unliquidated obligations 4 793 2,657 2,477 3,499 0 9,430

Disbursed 1,148 e 1,776 730 584 226 0 4,464

Costa Rica

Allocated 2,118 5,120 3,295 7,782 5,919 c 0 24,234

Unobligated balance 0 0 1 df 0 f 0 0 1

Unliquidated obligations 453 2,370 1,579 6,510 5,718 0 16,630

Disbursed 1,665 e 2,750 1,715 1,272 201 0 7,603

Costa Rica Bilateral 

Allocated 0 0 500 0 0 0 500

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disbursed 0 e 0 500 0 0 0 500

El Salvador

Allocated 4,452 12,781 5,359 c 9,344 c 9,106 0 41,042

Unobligated balance 0 1 1 f 0 d 0 0 2

Unliquidated obligations 743 3,957 3,444 8,071 8,447 0 24,662

Disbursed 3,709 e 8,823 1,913 1,273 659 0 16,377

Guatemala

Allocated 5,464 12,109 19,272 20,812 16,839 0 74,496

Unobligated balance 0 2 2 d 0 d 0 0 4

Unliquidated obligations 439 4,658 7,503 16,914 15,508 0 45,022

Disbursed 5,025 e 7,450 11,767 3,899 1,331 0 29,472

Guatemala Bilateral

Allocated 0 0 1,500 0 0 0 1,500

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 0 532 0 0 0 532

Disbursed 0 e 0 968 0 0 0 968

Honduras

Allocated 4,469 5,571 6,585 13,201 17,613 0 47,439
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 45 GAO-13-771 Central America

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011a FY2012 FY2013 Total b

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 811 1,119 3,733 9,111 17,125 0 31,899

Disbursed 3,658 e 4,452 2,852 4,089 488 0 15,539

Nicaragua

Allocated 1,431 3,045 1,192 971 369 0 7,008

Unobligated balance 0 400 8 d 0 d 0 df 0 408

Unliquidated obligations 715 1,607 655 780 287 0 4,044

Disbursed 716 e 1,038 529 190 81 0 2,554

Panama

Allocated 2,097 10,782 5,186 10,297 9,663 c 0 38,025

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 295 2,709 1,217 6,791 8,576 0 19,588

Disbursed 1,802 e 8,073 3,969 3,505 1,087 0 18,436

Regionalg

Allocated 3,752 18,023 8,135 6,033 21,766 0 57,709

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 10,586 0 d 10,586

Unliquidated obligations 1,057 2,930 4,603 2,909 9,446 0 20,945

Disbursed 2,695 e 15,093 3,532 3,124 1,735 0 26,179

INCLE Centrally Managed 

Accounth

Allocated -- -- 10,588 -- -- -- 10,588

Unobligated balance -- -- N/A -- -- -- N/A

Unliquidated obligations -- -- N/A -- -- -- N/A

Disbursed -- -- N/A -- -- -- N/A

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals. In 

the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs financial tracking database, 

disbursed amounts are labeled as dispensed amounts and allocated amounts are labeled as values 

allocated. State has 5 years from the time that the period of availability for obligation expires to 

disburse INCLE funds.

a

Fiscal year 2011 allocated amounts differ from the amounts we reported in GAO-13-295R because 

we reported amounts as of September 30, 2011. Regional funds were further allocated for CARSI 

partner countries in fiscal year 2012, increasing the allocated amounts for individual CARSI countries 

and decreasing the regional allocated amount.

b

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.

c

For the purposes of this report, “allocated” amounts include funds for vetted units in these countries.

The funding for the vetted units is tracked in the year in which the funds were allocated.

d

According to State officials, unobligated balances from fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 are 

no longer available for obligation. Unobligated balances from fiscal year 2012 are available for 

obligation until September 30, 2013. Unobligated balances from fiscal year 2013 are available for 

obligations until September 30, 2014.
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 46 GAO-13-771 Central America

e

According to State officials, payments applied to an obligation in the accounting system are recorded 

as disbursements or liquidations for INCLE.

f

Because we are presenting budget data in thousands of dollars, amounts under $1,000 are reported 

as zero. For Costa Rica the amount is $288 and $626; for El Salvador the amount is $858; for 

Nicaragua the amount is $353 and $126; for Panama the amount is $23; and for Regional the amount 

is $350.

g

"Regional” refers to funding for CARSI region-wide programs in Central America that is not tied to a 

program in a specific country.

h

State was only able to provide allocated amounts for CARSI activities from this account. According to 

State officials, these INCLE funds are centrally managed and are not tracked by region or country; 

therefore, State was not able to provide information on the unobligated balance, unliquidated 

obligations, and disbursements of these funds. N/A indicates that these data are not available. 

Dashes indicate “not applicable”.

Table 7: International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) Funding, by Fiscal Year Disbursed, to Support Central 

America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total a

Belize 0 13 746 675 2,194 836 4,464

Costa Rica 0 1 768 1,861 1,196 3,778 7,604

Costa Rica Bilateral 0 0 0 21 101 378 500

El Salvador 0 353 1,482 4,092 6,117 4,333 16,377

Guatemala 0 1,001 1,630 6,258 15,725 4,858 29,472

Guatemala Bilateral 0 0 0 469 481 19 969

Honduras 0 0 100 3,596 6,198 5,644 15,538

Nicaragua 0 23 157 901 1,374 99 2,554

Panama 0 267 2,813 4,773 5,861 4,723 18,437

Regional 0 35 9,306 3,032 8,476 5,331 26,180

INCLE Centrally 

Managed Accountb

-- -- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CARSI INCLE total 0 1,693 17,002 25,678 47,723 29,999 122,095

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals.

a

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.

b

According to State officials, these INCLE funds are centrally managed and are not tracked by region 

or country; therefore, State was not able to provide information on the disbursements of these funds. 

N/A indicates that these data are not available. Dashes indicate “not applicable”.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) shares 

responsibility with State to administer the ESF account. USAID oversees 

the implementation of most programs funded from this account, according 

to USAID officials; State’s Bureau for Western Hemisphere Affairs 

administers State’s portion of ESF.

Status of CARSI ESF 

Account Funds
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 47 GAO-13-771 Central America

As of June 1, 2013, USAID had allocated the largest amounts of its ESF 

funds for CARSI activities to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (see 

table 8). Furthermore, USAID had disbursed approximately $51 million of 

ESF funds to support CARSI activities (see table 9). For fiscal year 2013, 

USAID officials explained that the agency has not yet been allocated 

funds from the Office of Management and Budget that Congress 

appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Therefore, the disbursement data 

provided below in table 9 for fiscal year 2013 are of funds allocated only 

in prior years, and table 8 reflects no allocations for fiscal year 2013.

Table 8: Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding Allocated and Disbursed, by Fiscal Year Appropriated, by the United States 

Agency for International Development (USAID) toward Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in 

Partner Countries, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 a FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total b

El Salvador

Allocated 4,000 2,750 5,744 7,850 9,800 0 30,144

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 c 150 425 5,848 9,800 0 16,223

Disbursed 4,000 d 2,600 5,319 2,002 0 0 13,921

Guatemala

Allocated 6,750 2,750 5,750 5,500 11,500 0 32,250

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 e 1,000

Unliquidated obligations 0 c 131 3,423 5,500 10,500 0 19,554

Disbursed 6,750 d 2,619 2,327 0 0 0 11,696

Honduras

Allocated 2,000 4,250 5,500 7,425 16,500 0 35,675

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 c 1,040 2,333 6,757 16,484 0 26,614

Disbursed 2,000 d 3,342 3,035 f 668 f 16 0 9,061

Nicaragua

Allocated 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 5,000

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 959 0 e 959

Unliquidated obligations 225 c 0 1,000 935 41 0 2,201

Disbursedd 775 1,000 0 65 0 0 g 1,840

Panama

Allocated 3,650 1,000 2,350 0 0 0 7,000

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 c 0 g 844 0 0 0 844

Status of USAID’s ESF Funding 

for CARSI Activities
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 48 GAO-13-771 Central America

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 a FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total b

Disbursed 3,640 d 1,000 1506 0 0 0 6,146

Central America Regional Programh

Allocated 0 0 0 5,224 2,500 0 7,724

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 c 0 0 5,073 2,371 0 7,444

Disbursedd 0 0 0 151 129 0 280

Regional Sustainable Development Programi

Allocated 2,600 4,250 1,300 501 5,200 0 13,851

Unobligated balance 0 0 6 2 e 4,660 e 0 e 4,668

Unliquidated obligations 33 c 316 36 150 331 0 866

Disbursed 2,567 d 3,801 1,390 f 349 f 209 0 8,316

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals. 

USAID has 5 years from the time that the period of availability for obligation expires to disburse ESF

funds.

a

USAID has no assistance programs in Belize or Costa Rica, so neither country directly received ESF

funding for CARSI activities from USAID. Also, as of fiscal year 2012, USAID’s Mission in Panama is 

closed.

b

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.

c

According to State officials, unliquidated obligations for ESF are amounts that have been obligated 

but not disbursed or expensed and remain as uninvoiced or unpaid.

d

According to State officials, disbursements for ESF are payments made by the agency to other 

parties using cash, checks, or electronic transfers.

e

According to USAID officials, unobligated funds from fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are no longer 

available for obligation. Unobligated balances from fiscal year 2012 are available for obligation until 

September 30, 2013.

f

According to USAID officials, a discrepancy of about $132,000 between Honduras and the Regional 

Sustainable Development Programs appears because there was a trade between the two operating 

units to ensure that all funds were obligated. At the end of fiscal year 2010, funds appropriated in 

2009 for the Regional Sustainable Development Program were expiring and USAID’s Bureau for Latin 

America and the Caribbean was not able to obligate them. These funds were transferred to USAID 

Honduras, which obligated them before they were going to expire. In exchange, an equal amount of 

2010 funding to USAID Honduras was transferred back to the Regional Sustainable Development 

Program for obligation.

g

Because we are presenting budget data in thousands of dollars, amounts under $1,000 are reported 

as zero. For Nicaragua the amount is $342 and for Panama $257.

h

The Central America Regional Program is administered out of El Salvador; its location is 

advantageous for programming that supports the Central America Integration System (SICA), which 

is headquartered in El Salvador. SICA is the institutional framework for regional integration in Central 

America; it was created by Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and 

Panama.

i

The Regional Sustainable Development Program is administered out of Washington, D.C., and is 

targeted to assist the countries of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama.
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 49 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 9: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding, by Fiscal Year 

Disbursed, to Support Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 a FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total b

El Salvador 0 0 2,031 3,082 5,137 3,671 13,921

Guatemala 0 0 311 3,973 5,034 2,379 11,697

Honduras 0 0 850 2,001 2,728 3,481 9,060

Nicaragua 0 0 372 342 863 263 1,840

Panama 0 54 221 1,746 2,767 1,358 6,146

Central America Regional Program 0 c 0 0 0 0 280 280

Regional Sustainable Program 0 d 0 487 3,184 3,044 1,602 8,317

CARSI ESF (USAID) total 0 54 4,272 14,328 19,573 13,034 51,261

Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals.

a

USAID has no assistance programs in Belize or Costa Rica, so neither country directly received ESF 

funding for CARSI activities. Also, as of fiscal year 2012, USAID’s Mission in Panama is closed.

b

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.

c

The Central America Regional Program is administered out of El Salvador; its location is 

advantageous for programming that supports the Central America Integration System (SICA), which 

is headquartered in El Salvador. SICA is the institutional framework for regional integration in Central 

America; it was created by Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and 

Panama.

d

The Regional Sustainable Development Program is administered out of Washington, D.C., and is 

targeted to assist the countries of El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Panama.

As of June 1, 2013, State had allocated the largest amounts of its ESF 

funds for CARSI activities to Costa Rica, Belize, and Panama (see table 

10).2

 2

Costa Rica and Belize do not have USAID bilateral missions; therefore, State’s Bureau of 

Western Hemisphere Affairs allotted funds to these embassies for obligation at post.

Furthermore, State had disbursed approximately $10 million of ESF 

funding for CARSI activities (see table 11). In addition, State officials 

explained that the agency has not yet been allocated funds that Congress 

appropriated for fiscal year 2013. Therefore, the disbursement data 

provided below in table 11 for fiscal year 2013 are only of funds allocated 

in prior years, and table 10 reflects no allocations for fiscal year 2013.

Status of State’s ESF Funding 

for CARSI Activities
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 50 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 10: Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding Allocated and Disbursed, by Fiscal Year Appropriated, by State toward 

Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in Partner Countries, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 a FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total b

Belize

Allocated 468 450 300 600 500 0 2,318

Unobligated balance 0 22 0 c 0 500 0 d 522

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 306 0 0 306

Disbursedf 468 428 300 294 0 0 1,490

Costa Rica

Allocated 808 800 879 1,000 1,000 0 4,487

Unobligated balance 0 0 3 0 c 1,000 0 d 1,003

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 100 0 0 100

Disbursed 808 f 800 876 900 0 0 3,384

El Salvador

Allocated 694 0 0 94 0 0 788

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 56 0 0 56

Disbursed 694 f 0 0 37 0 0 731

Guatemala

Allocated 1,100 400 0 69 0 0 1,569

Unobligated balance 0 1 0 c 0 0 0 1

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 34 0 0 34

Disbursed 1,100 f 399 0 34 0 0 1,533

Honduras

Allocated 412 150 0 341 0 0 903

Unobligated balance 0 150 0 g 0 0 0 150

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 76 0 0 76

Disbursed 412 f 0 0 264 0 0 676

Nicaragua

Allocated 869 200 0 208 0 0 1,277

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 42 0 0 42

Disbursed 869 f 200 0 166 0 0 1,235

Panama

Allocated 651 0 177 189 1,000 0 2,017

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 949 0 d 949

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 54 31 0 85
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 51 GAO-13-771 Central America

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 a FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total b

Disbursed 651 f 0 177 135 20 0 983

Regionalh

Allocated 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 1,000

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 0 1,000 0 1,000

Unliquidated obligations 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0

Disbursed 0 f 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals. 

State has 5 years from the time that the period of availability for obligation expires to disburse ESF 

funds.

a

For fiscal year 2008, $5 million of State CARSI ESF funding was made available for an Economic 

and Social Development Fund for Central America to help support educational exchange programs.

b

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.

c

According to State officials, reported unobligated amounts for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 have 

expired and are no longer available for obligation.

d

According to State officials, unobligated balances for fiscal year 2012 are still available for obligation 

and are expected to be obligated by post in fiscal year 2013.

e

According to State officials, unliquidated obligations for ESF are amounts that have been obligated 

but not disbursed or expensed and remain as uninvoiced or unpaid.

f

According to State officials, disbursement for ESF are payments made by the agency to other parties 

using cash, checks, or electronic transfers.

g

According to USAID officials, these funds were initially obligated and de-obligated at State and have 

since been returned to USAID.

h

According to State officials, $1,000,000 of ESF funds from fiscal year 2012 are pending 

programming decisions with the Department and cannot be broken out by country. At the time of 

reporting these funds remain regional unobligated funds.

Table 11: State Economic Support Fund (ESF) Funding, by Fiscal Year Disbursed, to Support Central America Regional 

Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total a

Belize 0 468 11 308 383 320 1,490

Costa Rica 0 808 0 1,304 875 397 3,384

El Salvador 0 694 0 0 0 37 731

Guatemala 0 1,100 0 399 34 0 1,533

Honduras 0 412 0 0 109 155 676

Nicaragua 0 869 0 133 100 133 1,235

Panama 0 651 0 82 172 78 983

CARSI ESF (State) total 0 5,002 11 2,226 1,673 1,120 10,032

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals.

a

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 52 GAO-13-771 Central America

State’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation and its 

Bureau of Counterterrorism administer CARSI NADR funds. NADR funds 

were allocated for Central American countries under the Mérida Initiative 

only for fiscal year 2008. NADR Export Control and Related Border 

Security (EXBS) and Counterterrorism (CT) funds were used to support 

activities in partner countries. As of June 1, 2013, the largest amount of 

funds had been allocated for NADR-EXBS activities, and 96 percent of 

those allocated funds had been disbursed (see table 12). Slightly more 

than $6 million of CARSI NADR-EXBS and NADR-CT funds were 

disbursed as of June 1, 2013 (see table 13). According to State officials, it 

is not possible to provide a country-by-country breakout of CARSI NADREXBS funds disbursed because the funds are intended for regional 

programming.

Table 12: Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs (NADR) Funding Allocated and Disbursed, by 

Fiscal Year Appropriated, toward Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in Partner Countries, as of 

June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Total

Regional CT a EXBS

Allocated 1,100 5,100 -- -- -- -- -- 6,200

Unobligated balance 0 10 -- b -- -- -- -- 10

Unliquidated obligations 0 176 -- -- -- -- -- 176

Disbursed 1,100 4,914 -- -- -- -- -- 6,014

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals. 

State has 5 years from the time the period of availability for obligation expires to disburse NADR 

funds. Dashes indicate “not applicable.”

a

NADR includes both NADR-Counterterrorism (CT) and NADR-Export Control and Related Border 

Security (EXBS) funding. NADR-EXBS programming is allocated, obligated, and tracked regionally 

for CARSI; therefore, State officials informed us that a break-out by country is not possible. CARSI 

NADR funds come from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, and were used to fund activities 

for Mérida-Central America.

b

According to State officials, these funds were never obligated and the obligation period for these 

funds expired on September 30, 2009; therefore, these funds are no longer available for obligation. 

State officials explained that these funds were never obligated because contracts for NADR-EXBS 

activities were awarded on a competitive basis and actual costs were lower than estimated. These 

funds could not be applied to a different program prior to the obligation period expiring.

Status of CARSI NADR 

Account Funds
Appendix II: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Funds

Page 53 GAO-13-771 Central America

Table 13: Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) Funding, by Fiscal Year Disbursed, to 

Support Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities, as of June 1, 2013

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 Total a

NADR-EXBS 0 b 974 2,283 712 334 611 4,914

NADR-CT

(Regional Total) 0 376 103 385 219 15 1,098

Belize 0 4 0 179 151 15 349

Costa Rica 0 3 23 35 9 0 70

El Salvador 0 14 5 34 10 0 63

Guatemala 0 142 2 32 16 0 192

Honduras 0 133 0 14 19 0 166

Nicaragua 0 4 1 4 7 0 16

Panama 0 0 5 32 7 0 44

Costs of Grants to Organization 

of American States 0 77 67 55 0 0 199

CARSI NADR total 0 1,350 2,386 1,097 553 626 6,012

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals.

NADR includes both NADR-Counterterrorism (CT) and NADR-Export Control and Related Border 

Security (EXBS) funding. CARSI NADR funds came from the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008,

and were used for activities for Mérida-Central America.

a

Data cover 8 months of fiscal year 2013, from October 1, 2012, through June 1, 2013.

b

NADR-EXBS programming is allocated regionally and not by country.
Appendix III: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Foreign Military 

Financing Account Funds

Page 54 GAO-13-771 Central America

This appendix provides the status of Central America Regional Security 

Initiative (CARSI) Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funds as of June 1, 

2013. Table 1 describes how U.S. agencies have allocated and 

committed FMF funds (by year of appropriation) toward activities in 

partner countries. The presentation of FMF allocations and commitments 

is different from presentations on allocations, obligations, and 

disbursements on the other CARSI accounts in appendix II because FMF 

funds are budgeted and tracked in a different way.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) and the Defense 

Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS) are responsible for the 

financial systems that account for FMF funds, as well as tracking the 

implementation and disbursement of those funds. According to DSCA 

officials, FMF funds are obligated upon apportionment. Further, DSCA’s 

system can only track FMF uncommitted and committed amounts, not 

unliquidated obligations or disbursements. DFAS tracks disbursements 

using the Defense Integrated Finance System; however, there is no direct 

link between the DSCA and DFAS systems, and the DFAS system does 

not track funding for specific initiatives, such as CARSI.

The Department of State (State) allocated close to $26 million of FMF 

funds for Central American countries for activities under the Mérida 

Initiative from fiscal years 2008 to 2010. From fiscal years 2008 to 2010, 

State allocated the largest amounts of these FMF funds to El Salvador, 

Costa Rica, and Panama. As of June 1, 2013, approximately 90 percent 

of the total allocated amount had been committed (see table 14).

Table 14: Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Funding Allocated and

Committed, by Fiscal Year Appropriated, toward Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) Activities in Partner 

Countries, as of June 1, 2013

Dollars in thousands

Country FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY 2013 Total

Belize

Allocated 0 2,978 200 -- -- -- 3,178

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Uncommitted 0 a 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Committed 0 b 2,978 200 -- -- -- 3,178

Costa Rica

Allocated 2,800 1,764 325 -- -- -- 4,889

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Appendix III: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Foreign Military 

Financing Account Funds
Appendix III: Status of Central America 

Regional Security Initiative Foreign Military 

Financing Account Funds

Page 55 GAO-13-771 Central America

Country FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY 2013 Total

Uncommitted 0 a 311 0 -- -- -- 311

Committed 2,800 b 1,453 325 -- -- -- 4,578

El Salvador

Allocated 600 7,272 1,000 -- -- -- 8,872

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Uncommitted 0 a 917 426 -- -- -- 1,343

Committed 600 b 6,355 574 -- -- -- 7,529

Guatemala

Allocated 0 0 1,375 -- -- -- 1,375

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Uncommitted 0 a 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Committed 0 b 0 1,375 -- -- -- 1,375

Honduras

Allocated 0 0 1,514 -- -- -- 1,514

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Uncommitted 0 a 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Committed 0 b 0 1,514 -- -- -- 1,514

Nicaragua

Allocated 0 746 786 -- -- -- 1,532

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Uncommitted 0 a 146 786 -- -- -- 932

Committed 0 b 600 0 -- -- -- 600

Panama

Allocated 600 2,159 1,800 -- -- -- 4,559

Unobligated balance 0 0 0 -- -- -- 0

Uncommitted 0 a 104 0 -- -- -- 104

Committed 600 b 2,055 1,800 -- -- -- 4,455

Source: GAO analysis of State data.

Notes: Amounts have been rounded to the nearest thousand and therefore may not sum to totals.

Dashes indicate “not applicable”.

a

For the purposes of this report, “uncommitted” amounts represent FMF obligations not yet committed 

for disbursement.

b

For the purposes of this report, “committed” amounts include FMF funding that has been committed 

but not yet disbursed, and FMF funding that has been disbursed to a case.
Appendix IV: Comments from the

U.S. Agency for International Development

Page 56 GAO-13-771 Central America

Appendix IV: Comments from the

U.S. Agency for International Development
Appendix IV: Comments from the

U.S. Agency for International Development

Page 57 GAO-13-771 Central America
Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of State

Page 58 GAO-13-771 Central America

Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of State
Appendix V: Comments from the

Department of State

Page 59 GAO-13-771 Central America
Charles Michael Johnson, Jr., (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Valérie L. Nowak (Assistant 

Director), Ian Ferguson, Marisela Perez, Ryan Vaughan, and Debbie 

Chung made key contributions to this report. Martin de Alteriis, Ashley 

Alley, Lynn Cothern, and Etana Finkler also provided assistance.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(320939)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.